[gnso-dow123] oPOC proposal re Whois

["Steve Metalitz" <metalitz@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

The following is offered as a head start on tomorrow's Task Force
discussion.   
 
The proposal recently put forward by Ross strikes me as a useful
contribution that is worth further discussion.  However, a number of
issues need to be clarified. 

 

1.         The key phrase in the proposal - "primary operational point
of contact  (oPOC)" - is left undefined.  How this phrase is defined
could well be determinative of the acceptability of the proposal.  

 

2.         The relationship between the existing categories -
administrative or technical contact - and the new category - oPOC - is
unclear.  The second pre-supposition in the third paragraph of the
overview suggests that the same data would be collected as today.
(Actually the RAA does not address what information is collected, only
what information is displayed and/or submitted to the registry.)  Would
the registrant simply be asked to designate one of the two existing
categories of contacts as the oPOC?  I note that there is a proposal
later in the document to address this issue in the Inter-registrar
Transfer Policy but not elsewhere.  

 

3.         Where would this proposal leave bulk access or third-party
providers of Whois data"  (Pre-supposition 1 seems to suggest they would
no longer exist.)  

 

4.         Leaving aside how the admin and tech contacts become the
oPOC, my comparison of the proposal to what data registrars must publish
now (Art. 3.3.1 of RAA) is that the following items no longer would be
required to be published:

 

*       postal address of registered name holder
*       fax numbers for contacts
*       creation and expiration date

 

Is this correct?    What about nameserver IP addresses, which are now
generally included in Whois output though that is not specified in RAA
(it seems under the proposal that these would be available from registry
but not registrar?)?  

 

5.         Can more detail be provided about the concern with
publication of additional data by registries (as some registry
agreements now require)?  Issue 3 under "Motivations" refers to "legal,
operational and technical confusion" - please explain.  

 

6.         Re the section on correcting inaccurate Whois data, would a
time limit for any step be specified?  

 

7.         Re point (d) of this section, what if the inaccuracy involves
some element of the Whois data other than the e-mail address? 

 

8.         In this section, is the "standardized mechanism" intended to
refer to WDPRS or a refinement/expansion of WDPRS, and is the intent to
rule out any obligation to respond to notices of alleged inaccuracy
received in any other way?  

 

9.         The issues listed under "Motivations" all seem worthy of
discussion.  The opening of that section seems to suggest that all would
need to be resolved before the proposal could be implemented.  Is that
the intention of the authors of the proposal?  

 

Steve Metalitz