<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
[registrars] Regarding Board discussion on WHOIS policy work
- To: "Registrars Constituency" <registrars@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: [registrars] Regarding Board discussion on WHOIS policy work
- From: "Bruce Tonkin" <Bruce.Tonkin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 20 Sep 2007 10:29:46 +1000
- List-id: registrars@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Sender: owner-registrars@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Thread-index: Acf7HVjf8WOeDFs5S3Wv827gNMJZoA==
- Thread-topic: Regarding Board discussion on WHOIS policy work
From: http://www.icann.org/minutes/prelim-report-11sep07.htm
Information Update on GNSO's WHOIS Policy Development
Denise Michel advised that the GNSO has an ongoing PDP on WHOIS and at a
recent GNSO Council meeting a schedule was laid out for WHOIS reports.
Council will have a final vote on task force and working group reports
that staff are finalizing. Staff was asked to engage in some studies on
registrars and misuses, the study is also expected to review processes
available today, and other studies staff is working on. An
implementation assessment is being prepared on issues involved on what
is referred to as the operational point of contact (OPOC) proposal. The
working group report completed in March intended a point of contact in
lieu of a registrant. More recently the GNSO Council established a short
term working group to look at the OPOC issue, and the working group
examined the roles and responsibilities of OPOC not fulfilled,
legitimate interest, third party contact information should be based on
registered name holder, registrants use of domain name. The working
group report has some points of agreement and some of points of
significant disagreement. Staff is compiling all this information for
Council consideration.
Susan Crawford asked the timing for when board will get the report from
the GNSO. Denise Michel advised that it is very fluid at this point in
that with regard to OPOC, at one point there was strong agreement on the
ability to consider OPOC proposal and the support for that proposal
decreased as we got further into the detail of implementation and
effects on registry and registrars became apparent. So there are many
open issues and the important step is the staff development of
implementation notes. The timing is unknown.
Janis Karklins recognized that the GNSO council has used words in GAC
WHOIS principles recommendations for action for study on use and misuses
of WHOIS data, which is appreciated by the GAC. He is happy that staff
has started compiling the data and will prepare a report. He asked about
the timeline for the completion of the work and what sources will be
used in compiling report.
Liz Gasser confirmed that recommendations made by the GAC have been
incorporated into the GNSO discussion. Staff is undertaking work to
obtain information regarding the uses and potential misuses of
information, the use of proxy services as it affects Whois accuracy, and
Whois contractual compliance. Staff will provide additional updates on
activities. There are some preparatory activities that will guide staff
about additional work. Staff will be giving an update to GNSO on 4
October.
Bruce Tonkin advised that conflicting draft resolutions have been
circulating on the Council list regarding next steps on the WHOIS
proposals, however as registries and registrars appear to be withdrawing
their support for the taskforce proposal on OPAC, as modified by
proposals from the WHOIS working group, he expects Council will say they
can't reach an agreement.
The Chair asked if the parties in debate agreed accurate information is
available, was who has access to the information the primary issue.
Bruce Tonkin advised that the work had stopped on accuracy until
improvements were made on access control, and that many in the GNSO
believe that registrants would be more willing to provide accurate
information if it was not publicly available. The Chair suggested that
maybe there is a kernel of agreement for drawing together the different
sides.
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|