Hybrid Tiered Access Proposal (was Re: [gnso-dow123] Alternative proposal re Whois)

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

Second idea--this incorporates elements of both the OPOC proposal as well as
the "special circumstances proposal" (and the current practice in .name).

1) Standard Whois output is changed as per the OPOC proposal.

2) A second tier of data is available, which includes further information
(the registrant street address, in particular).  This information is made
available to parties that enter into a contract with the registrar
indicating that they will not use the data for various bad purposes (TBD).
This is somewhat similar to the model currently used by .name as well as in
the Bulk Whois space.

3) Those with "special circumstances" can apply, through a similar mechanism
to Steve's proposal, to have ALL of their personal contact information
removed from both Tier #1 and Tier #2 (information about the OPOC would
remain).

This is similar to what .name has implemented, with the added option of the
"special circumstances" opt out for those with very strong privacy concerns.

Jordyn

On 10/30/06, Metalitz, Steven <met@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> I had hoped to be able to improve the proposal with comments from other
> task force members, but since these do not seem to have materialized, I
> will aim to put this in final form this week.
>
> Steve
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ross Rader [mailto:ross@xxxxxxxxxx]
> Sent: Sunday, October 29, 2006 8:56 PM
> To: ross@xxxxxxxxxx
> Cc: Metalitz, Steven; gnso-dow123@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: [gnso-dow123] Alternative proposal re Whois
>
> Resent - not sure if it was sent/received last time around.
>
> Ross Rader wrote:
> > When do you expect this proposal to move to a more finished state?
> >
> > Metalitz, Steven wrote:
> >>  Attached please find an alternative proposal on Whois which I hope
> >> the TF can consider.  It is the result of discussions among members
> >> of the IPC and other constituencies and is a working draft, based
> >> largely on the model used for several years in the Dutch ccTLD, .NL.
>
> >> I would be glad to take a few minutes on today's call to present it
> >> and will ask that it be discussed in more detail on our next call. I
> >> look forward to your comments and suggestions and would note again
> >> that this is intended as a working draft, not a final product.
> >> Steve Metalitz
> >>
> >>
> >