RE: [gnso-dow123] Preliminary summary of Whois task force conference call - 17 May 2005

["Steven J. Metalitz IIPA" <metalitz@xxxxxxxx>]

Please see below suggested responses to Jordyn's list.   

________________________________

From: owner-gnso-dow123@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-dow123@xxxxxxxxx]
On Behalf Of Maria Farrell
Sent: Thursday, May 19, 2005 7:12 PM
To: gnso-dow123@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [gnso-dow123] Preliminary summary of Whois task force
conference call - 17 May 2005


Dear all,
 
Below is the preliminary summary of this week's Whois task force
conference call.  Also below is the list of implementation issues on the
recommendation on notification which Jordyn has prepared for online
discussion by this task force.
 
All the best, Maria  
 
 

List of implementation issues and questions regarding the recommendation
on notification

 

1) How often should the registrant see (and acknowledge) the 

 notifications relating to the use of their contact data?

    - Once per domain name

    - Once per batch of domain names

    - Once per relationship with the registrant

    - Some variation of the above

 

In my opinion the best answer is the first option but I think this is an
appropriate issue to be dealt with by an implementation committee to
define "the registration process."  

 

 2) Should the registrar and registrant be able to mutually agree to 

 modify when the notifications are made?

 

Yes, so long as it occurs and consent is obtained before the
registration process is completed, as the RAA appears to require.  

  

 3) Should the registrant be periodically reminded of the use of their 

 contact information in the Whois system? e.g. with an annual request 

 to update any inaccurate information.  If so, how is this reconciled 

 with requirement #3 (that the registrant must obtain a separate 

 acknowledgment of this notification)?

 

I don't see any contradiction here.  Note that the RAA notification
obligation applies to   "each new or renewed Registered Name Holder, "
thus supporting Tony's suggestion that there should be a new
notification at the time of renewal.  There is nothing to prevent a
registrar from including another notification along with its annual WDRP
notice (even for a multi-year registration) but the draft recommendation
does not require it. 

 4) [From Bruce's comment] Is there a more appropriate way to notify 

 the registrant that their data will be used in the Whois system? 

All Bruce's suggested mechanisms for presenting the notification are
consistent with this recommendation so long as an acknowledgement is
then  obtained.  No modification to the recommendation is required for
this.   

 

 5) Should an implementation group work to define the precise meaning 

 of 'during the registration process'?

 

 I would support this proposal. Implementation groups have been used in
the Whois PDP process before and this would be an appropriate step once
the Council has approved the policy.  

 

 

WHOIS conference call

10 May 2005 

 

Preliminary summary

 

Participants

 

TBA

 

 

 

1)        Document file types

 

Decisions

*       Staff to consult internally on preparing major documents for
circulation in .html.  

Actions

*       Glen and Maria will consult internally and refer back to the
task force at a later date. 

 

2          Task force terms of reference

The GNSO Council has not yet finalized the Whois task force's terms of
reference and has solicited input from the task force on how ongoing
task force work items should be accommodated.  

 

Actions

*       Jordyn and Maria will develop language to incorporate into the
terms of reference the two recommendations currently in development by
the task force. 
*       List participants to review the follow-up topics and prioritise
them for future discussion.  

 

 

3          Final task force report on notification

Maria prepared the final task force report, incorporating summaries of
the public comments.  Unless a substantial changes is made to the
recommendations of the report, there will be no further vote on it by
the task force.  

 

Decisions:

*       Editing changes will be made to the final report; changing of
the title of section 1.2 on public comments to differentiate between
different public comment periods on different topics, complete summary
of task force work process to date. 
*       A list of implementation issues and questions will be circulated
to the list for online discussion on possible suggestions to forward to
the implementation group or adjustments to the recommendation.  If there
is broad support for adjustments to the recommendations, the task force
will modify the recommendations and discuss them further before
forwarding to the Council.  If no substantive changes are made and
broadly agreed by Tuesday 24 May, the task force report will be
forwarded in its current state to the Council.    

 

Actions:

*       Maria to incorporate changes to the final task force report. 
*       Maria/Glen to inquire about the capability of the list software
to give confirmations of messages sent to the public comment forums. 
*       Jordyn/Maria to prepare a list of implementation issues and
questions discussed on the call and circulate to the list for online
discussion. 
*       Following any subsequent mailing list discussion, Jordyn will
send a note to the Council advising them of the steps being taken to
resolve any outstanding undefined issues before 2nd June 2005 (date of
the next GNSO Council meeting).  

 

Topics for next week's call:

*       Follow-up discussion on recommendation on notification 
*       Discussion of the form of the recommendation on conflicts of
laws - policy or advice?