Re: [gnso-dow123] For your review: Revised version of preliminary task force report on Whois services
Maria Farrell wrote: Dear all, I've attached a marked up draft with my preliminary comments, here are the accompanying notes: pg. 4 - Points on which we have consensus - I don't believe we have consensus that "most Registrants" do not understand the meaning or purpose of the different contacts, but I believe that we have consensus that "many Registrants and Whois users" do not understand the meaning. Without doing some sort of exhaustive survey, we would be hard pressed to state with any certainty whether or not the majority (most) of registrants and whois users are confused by the purpose and use of contacts. pg. 4 - Points on which we have consensus - we have consensus that less data should be published in Whois. Both the OPOC proposal and the Steve's special interest draft indicate that less data should be made available. The OPOC proposal takes this a step further and says "less data and different data" but no one has disagreed that less data should be published (otherwise, why would there be a need for exceptions that limit the data that gets published) pg. 4 - Points on which we don't have consensus - we don't have consensus on the OPOC proposition that "different" data should be published. Steve's draft doesn't talk about publishing different data, it talks about publishing less data, as does the OPOC proposal. The OPOC proposal also talks about publishing different data, a point on which there is no consensus (see above as well). pg. 12 - I added some language to reflect the specific fact that the proposal includes input and revisions from all constituencies. pg 13 - I don't know if anyone has specifically proposed that processes from the telecoms space would be used for access to unpublished data, but that registrars would continue with current means of working with law enforcement and rightsholders and document them in a statement of best practices. pg 20 - I'm not sure that the general agreement is that providing consumer education is within ICANN's mandate or not, so I have rephrased this as a "should" pg 25 - Steve's implication that the availability of a privacy option increasing overall data accuracy is simply his conjecture - i.e. it is not fact based. To the contrary, we have heard time and time again in this TF from various industry experts, groups and stakeholders that the when faced with a mandatory publication requirement, registrants are induced to provide false data. Furthermore, a large body of research exists suggesting that specific registrants will provide false data no matter what the privacy option is. This stands in stark contrast to Steve's guess that the availability of such an option might prove to increase overall data accuracy. Therefore, I have removed the word "indicated" and changed it to "surmised" based on the lack of factual support for this statement. pg 55 - Steve has clearly indicated that the version circulated to the mailing list was a working draft and that a final submission would be provided to the task force. The text of the submission also indicates that the document is a draft copy, and not a final submission. Therefore, the Annex title should be clearly marked as a draft for review purposes and not as a final submission so as not to confuse the reader as to the status of this proposal. Please let me know if you have any questions. -ross Attachment:
docqSa38dLhVY.doc
|