[registrars] Whois issue

[Sam BAVAFA <s.bavafa@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Hi guys,

It was nice seeing some of you in the last ICANN meeting.

I have a question about the whois issue that i may ask to Jordan Buchanan
but if someone can help it would be good.

As you know, the whois task force is up to make a choice between few
diofferent models of multilevel access to the whois database containing
perosnal informations.

BTW, only an accredited registrar can access to the whois personal datas.
But, if we consider that a spammer or phisher can use many ways to access to
these infos, he can just apply and become an icann registrar and get the
full infos of everybody from the database !

Am i wrong ?

Jordan interview is here : http://www.domaine.info/content/view/1310/193/


Best Regards
Cordialement

www.Domaine.fr
www.Domaine.info
www.DomaiNews.fr



De : Bhavin Turakhia <bhavin.t@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date : Wed, 20 Dec 2006 01:47:15 +0530
À : "'Nevett, Jonathon'" <jnevett@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, 'Registrars
Constituency' <registrars@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Objet : RE: [registrars] FW: RRA Changes

jon: any updates on this? Verisign has started making phone calls to us (and
presumably others) telling us that we need to sign this by december
 
- Bhavin

>  
>  
> 
>  From: owner-registrars@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> [mailto:owner-registrars@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of  Bhavin.t@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Sent: Wednesday, December 13, 2006 12:39  AM
> To: 'Nevett, Jonathon'; 'Registrars  Constituency'
> Subject: RE: [registrars] FW: RRA  Changes
> 
>  
>  
> do let us know any updates you recv from them ... we are  putting ours on a
> stall too until an update
>  
>  
>  
> thanks for your note
> 
>  
>>  
>>  
>> 
>>  From: owner-registrars@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> [mailto:owner-registrars@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Nevett,  Jonathon
>> Sent: Tuesday, December 12, 2006 10:17 PM
>> To:  Registrars Constituency
>> Subject: [registrars] FW: RRA  Changes
>> Importance: High
>> 
>>  
>>  
>>  
>> 
>> All:  I just  sent this note to VeriSign.  I hope that VeriSign will handle
>> this  issue shortly, but we are waiting until it is resolved before taking
>> any  action with the draft agreement.  Thanks.   Jon
>>  
>>  
>>  
>> 
>>  
>>  
>> 
>> From:  Nevett, Jonathon
>> Sent:  Tuesday, December 12, 2006 11:35 AM
>> To: Dahlquist, Raynor
>> Cc: 'mshull@xxxxxxxxxxxx'; 'Gomes,  Chuck'; kurt.pritz@xxxxxxxxx
>> Subject: RRA Changes
>> Importance:  High
>>  
>>  
>>  
>> Dear Raynor:
>>  
>>  
>>  
>> We received a letter yesterday from VeriSign dated  December 6th requesting
>> that we execute an attached copy of the  new Registry-Registrar Agreement for
>> the .com regsitry.  The letter  states that the agreement provided is ³the
>> new ICANN approved .COM  Registry-Registrar Agreement that will take effect
>> and supersede your  existing .COM Registry-Registrar Agreement with VeriSign,
>> Inc on 30 December  2006.²
>>  
>>  
>>  
>> In the abundance of caution, we compared the copy of  the agreement attached
>> to the letter with the agreement actually approved by  the ICANN Board and
>> the U.S. Department of Commerce as Exhibit 8 to the .com  Registry Agreement
>> (http://www.icann.org/topics/vrsn-settlement/revised-appendix8-clean-29jan06.
>> pdf),  and there are both substantive and non-substantive differences between
>> the  version VeriSign sent to us for execution and the version approved by
>> ICANN  and the DOC.  These changes include adding various VeriSign-affiliated
>> parties to the agreement.
>>  
>>  
>>  
>> I brought this situation to ICANN¹s attention.   According to Kurt Pritz,
>> ICANN was aware of  VeriSign¹s request to  ICANN to make the substantive and
>> non-substantive changes, but stated in no  uncertain terms that ICANN has not
>> ³approved or adopted² any changes to the  RRA as required in Section 6.1.
>> Therefore, VeriSign¹s statement that  ICANN approved the version of the
>> agreement sent to us is false.   Moreover, not only did VeriSign misrepresent
>> that it received ICANN approval  to change the agreement, it also failed to
>> inform registrars of the changes  from the version posted on the ICANN
>> website.   
>>  
>>  
>>  
>> I find it remarkable that VeriSign would try to  change the terms of the RRA
>> in this manner, regardless of the substance of  the changes.  This kind of
>> behavior is unacceptable and violates the  terms and spirit of our
>> relationship.  Indeed, we should be trying to  engage in a period of healing
>> after the long and sometimes bitter dispute  over the advisability of the new
>> .com registry agreement.  Instead,  VeriSign apparently is engaging in
>> deceptive and obfuscating  behavior.
>>  
>>  
>>  
>> First, please let me know how you plan on rectifying  this situation.
>> Second, we should discuss a procedure for making  future changes to the .com
>> and .net RRAs so we don¹t continue to repeat this  same scenario every few
>> years.   As per the terms of the contract,  ICANN must approve any changes to
>> the agreement.  As a transparent  organization, ICANN should give the other
>> party to the agreement ­ the  registrars ­ an opportunity to review and
>> comment on proposed changes before  they are approved.  It is irrelevant
>> whether VeriSign or ICANN believes  that such changes are substantive.  Any
>> changes to a contract to which  registrars are a party should be shared with
>> us before they are approved.   Something  that may appear to be benign to
>> ICANN or VeriSign might have some unintended  consequence to other parties to
>> the agreement.  Third, if VeriSign does  seek to change certain provisions of
>> the agreement from the version ICANN  and the DOC recently approved, I
>> suggest that it seek to delete Section  6.15(a)(6), which still refers to a
>> Surety Instrument that VeriSign removed  from all other parts of the
>> contract.
>>  
>>  
>>  
>> I look forward to hearing back from  you.
>>  
>>  
>>  
>> Best,
>>  
>>  
>>  
>> Jon
>>  
>>  
>>  
>> Jonathon L.  Nevett
>>  
>> Vice President and Chief Policy  Counsel
>>  
>> NetworkSolutions