RE: [registrars] RE: Call for Constituency statements on Whois tf 1/2 recommendations

["Bruce Tonkin" <Bruce.Tonkin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

 Melbourne IT supports it.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-registrars@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx 
> [mailto:owner-registrars@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Nevett, Jonathon
> Sent: Thursday, 27 January 2005 2:30 AM
> To: Thomas Keller; Tim Ruiz
> Cc: Jordyn A. Buchanan; registrars@xxxxxxxx; Robert F. Connelly
> Subject: RE: [registrars] RE: Call for Constituency 
> statements on Whois tf 1/2 recommendations
> 
> We would like to propose to the Constituency the following 
> Amended and Restated Motion as our response to the Task Force 
> Recommendations.  
> 
> Thanks.  
> 
> Jon
> 
> Amended and Restated Motion
> 
> Whereas, the GNSO Registrar Constituency ("RC") has 
> considered the proposed policy recommendations of Whois Task 
> Force 1/2 in their entirety;
> 
> Whereas, the RC believes that the continued stability of the 
> registration process depends on its simplicity, 
> straightforwardness, and transparency; 
> 
> Whereas, burdening this process with policy and consumer 
> rights education notices diminishes its simplicity, 
> straightforwardness and transparency; 
> 
> Whereas, the RC believes that prescribing the method of 
> notification from registrants interferes with the simplicity 
> of this process, discourages desirable business innovations, 
> and represents entirely new obligations that would require 
> many registrars to completely re-establish their method of 
> registration; 
> 
> Whereas, the RC appreciates and understands the concerns of 
> the task force pertaining to Recommendations #2 and #3, but 
> does not agree with the costly and difficult to implement 
> proposal to require the specific highlighting of one 
> provision out of the many important provisions contained 
> within the registration agreement;
> 
> Whereas, it is appropriate to notify registrants that their 
> data will be included in the Whois system and to obtain 
> Registrants' acknowledgement of the fact that their data is 
> included in the Whois system as part of the registration 
> process prior to the completion of a registration transaction; 
> 
> Whereas, the requirements in Recommendation #3  already are 
> mandated in the current Registrar Accreditation Agreement in 
> sub-sections 3.7.7.4, 3.7.7.5, and 3.7.7.6; and
> 
> Whereas, no data or evidence has been presented that indicate 
> that the requirements of the current RAA are unsuitable or 
> ineffective; and implementing a separate and additional 
> acknowledgement from registrants as proposed would be a 
> costly and cumbersome process that cannot be practically 
> implemented in the current environment. 
> 
> Therefore, it is resolved that; 
> 
> [Resolved 1.0]; the Registrar Constituency does not support 
> adopting Recommendation #1 as consensus policy, but would 
> support a recommendation in the following form:
> 
> "Registrars must ensure that disclosures regarding 
> availability and third-party access to personal data 
> associated with domain names actually be available to 
> registrants during the registration process;"
> 
> [Resolved 2.0]; the Registrar Constituency does not support 
> adopting Recommendation #2 as consensus policy, but 
> encourages registrars to increase such notification to 
> registrants on a voluntary basis; 
> 
> [Resolved 3.0]; the Registrar Constituency does not support 
> adopting Recommendation #3 as a consensus policy, as it 
> believes that the current RAA requirements are sufficient, 
> but encourages registrars to increase such notification to 
> registrants on a voluntary basis;
> 
> [Resolved 4.0]; the foregoing positions of the Registrar 
> Constituency be reported to the Whois Task Force 1/2 and be 
> included in any Task Force report; and 
> 
> [Resolved 4.1]; the Task Force members from the Registrar 
> Constituency represent the foregoing positions at Task Force 1/2.
> 
> 
>