[whois-sc] Importance of accuracy versus other issues and consensus so far

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

Hello Steve,

> 
> Totally aside from the issue of the Steering Group's 
> priority-setting process, further delay on the Whois accuracy 
> issue does not strike me as a viable option for ICANN in the 
> current environment.  
> 

This is a fair comment, and probably equally applies to the longer term
issues in Task Force 2 (ie what data is collected and how it is
distributed).  There is a growing recognition in many countries of the
importance of privacy as it relates to publicly available electronic
databases, and ICANN as a whole needs to consider this with respect to
the WHOIS service.  Either the GNSO addresses this, or another part of
ICANN or groups outside of ICANN (e.g Governments via legislation
specific to WHOIS) will address it for us (note I have heard the same
comments made with respect to accuracy).

I have participated in a similar process with respect to WHOIS in
Australia for .au, and I am also involved in a process with respect to
possible WHOIS services for an ENUM registry in Australia.  

I think the main consensus from the call today was that all three areas
need to be considered as soon as possible, and that a sequential
approach to the issues raised in the WHOIS Privacy Issues Report would
not be acceptable to anyone (unless their issue is first in the sequence
:-)).  Apart from the first task force, it would be difficult to achieve
consensus on what is THE most important issue (accurate contact
information or privacy). The prioritisation process has helped identify
the three areas, and also helped schedule the tasks in each area.

The other consensus seemed to be that it would be preferable to have at
least three people per constituency available to address the three
areas.

The next issue is that assuming we want to begin work on all three
areas, what is the most efficient structure.

(1) A single task force with three working groups

(2) Three separate task forces

The steering group seemed fairly evenly divided between these two
options.

It is also perhaps a choice between the organisation used by the last
WHOIS task force, and a different approach.

If we did have three separate task forces, it sounds like a regular
meeting of all three task forces may be useful to coordinate activities
(especially at a physical meeting).  Each task force though would be
responsible directly to the GNSO council for its progress.

It would seem appropriate for the GNSO itself (rather than the ICANN
President) to organise a workshop for the ICANN meeting in Rome that is
structured towards the three areas.  This workshop could be organised
well in advance to ensure that research can be done between now and the
workshop.

Regards,
Bruce Tonkin