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

["Metalitz, Steven" <met@xxxxxxx>]

Thanks for this as well Jordyn.  
 
Our concerns with tiered access (which is your point 2) center on
scalability. What may work for .name, a thick registry which holds all
the Whois data (data for which there is very little demand, by the way),
would be much harder to apply to 800 + registrars (or even 200+ if that
is the "real" number).   Similarly, a need for .name Whois data occurs
so rarely that it may not be a major problem to stop and "enter into a
contract" before accessing it. We have not been able to figure out a way
this could possibly work in .com without major delays.  The problem
occurs on the other side of the transaction too; there are a limited
number of entities interested in bulk access so managing contracts with
them is not a problem in principle, but potentially millions of Whois
requesters would want access to the higher tier of data, and that could
be problematic even if the data, or even just the contractual mechanism,
were centralized on the data provider side.   
 
Point 3 is sort of the flip-side of our proposal, and as I read it would
lead to a situation in which accurate contact data could not be obtained
at all.  Or would there be a Tier #3 of requesters who would be able to
access data under these circumstances?  
 
However, as with your other proposal, I would want other eyes to take a
look and see what could be adapted to the special circumstances
proposal.  Thanks for putting this forward.  
 
Steve 
 
       

________________________________

From: Jordyn Buchanan [mailto:jordyn.buchanan@xxxxxxxxx] 
Sent: Wednesday, November 01, 2006 11:46 AM
To: Metalitz, Steven
Cc: gnso-dow123@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Hybrid Tiered Access Proposal (was Re: [gnso-dow123]
Alternative proposal re Whois)


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
        >>
        >>
        >