RE: [gnso-dow123] Alternative proposal re Whois

[Wendy Seltzer <wendy@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

So much for policy development processes.   I guess we might as well 
disband the TF, since the Board already appears to have decided.

--Wendy

At 03:07 PM 9/29/2006 -0700, Paul Stahura wrote:

> http://www.icann.org/general/JPA-29sep06.pdf
>
> in #5 it says
>
> "icann shall continue to enforce existing policy relating to whois, such
> existing policy requires that icann implement measures to maintain
> timely, unrestricted and public access to accurate and complete whois
> information, including registrant, technical, billing and administrative
> contact information"
>
> I guess that rules out OPOC.
> By the way, billing contacts have not been require output since....
> well... its been so long, I can't remember when (or even if they ever
> were required).   Do we now need to change the registrar contracts to
> require billing contact information in the whois output?  I mean you'd
> have to go back like 10 years (no kidding) to copy-past this language
> from some ancient internet document into this important ICANN-DoC
> agreement.  Technically, I wonder if ICANN is already in breach.

--
Wendy Seltzer -- wendy@xxxxxxxxxxx
Visiting Assistant Professor of Law, Brooklyn Law School
Fellow, Berkman Center for Internet & Society
http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/seltzer.html
Chilling Effects: http://www.chillingeffects.org