[gnso-dow123] Concerns/onsequences of data removal

["Jordyn Buchanan" <jordyn.buchanan@xxxxxxxxx>]

Hello all:

I apologize for the delay in distributing this e-mail to the list.  As we
discussed on our last call, I have attempted to compile a list of the
consequences and concerns related to removing data elements from Whois that
were raised by task force participants on our last two calls.  My summary is
included below.  If you have suggestions that would allow us to improve the
OPOC proposal by addressing these concerns, please e-mail them to the list.
I'll note that we've already addressed one concern by the most recent change
to the proposal, which requires registrars to accept at least two
operational points of contacts if the registrant wants to provide them.

(Side note:  as a task force, we are currently taking no position as to the
merits of these concerns; these are simply the issues that were raised
during our conversation.)

**** Removing Registrant Mailing Address
1) This makes it difficult to determine jurisdiction.  As a result, may not
know which laws apply or where to file a complaint.  Governmental agencies
may not know which domains they have jurisdiction over.
 [It was noted during the call that registrants agreed to be sued in the
location of the registrant and that the OPOC might work to pass on these
types of notices.]
2) Some types of problems are best resolved by getting in touch with the
registrant.  Removing the mailing address may impede a communications
channel that often allows for expiditous resolution of a problem related to
a domain name (e.g. legal problems).
3) Removing the address prevents abuses of the Whois server that may put the
registrant in physical danger or result in chilling effects on speech.  Also
prevents fraudulent notices sent to registrants regarding renewal of their
domain name.

*** Replacing admin and technical contact with operational point of contact
1) The admin contact in some cases is a person who can directly resolve
cerain types of issues (e.g. trademark or copyright issues).  Removing these
 [On the call, some participants noted that they thought the OPOC was
simply a streamlined admin contact and could address these same issues]
2) There may be some delay introduced by not having direct contact with the
contacts.
3) Some businesses need to list more than one type of contact because
different groups deal with different types of problems.
 [Solution:  Ross proposed, and amended the proposal, to require registrars
to accept at least two OPOCs if the registrant wanted to provide them (the
registrant must always list one OPOC)]
99) [Also, Marilyn noted that we need to discuss how to communicate these
changes/responsibilities to registrants.  Not a direct concern to this
change, but a more general issue.]

*** Removing contact data from registry output
1) This data may now server as a backup when registrars do not provide it.
(Study cited indicating there was no data for 3% of Whois lookups)
 [Note:  most domains are in com/net, so this backup wouldn't work]
 [TF will request that staff provide a list of registrars and their
authoritative Whois servers as well as a summary of how many WDRP complaints
are related to registrars not providing any Whois data in response to a
query.]
2) Registrars have some concerns about the facilitation of transfers until
EPP auth codes are implemented by all registries.