ICANN ICANN Email List Archives

[gnso-reg-sgc]


<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

RE: [gnso-reg-sgc] Draft Final Report of Sub Group C

  • To: <ross@xxxxxxxxxx>
  • Subject: RE: [gnso-reg-sgc] Draft Final Report of Sub Group C
  • From: "Christopher Gibson" <cgibson@xxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Thu, 31 May 2007 07:49:48 -0400

This has been a helpful discussion.

1.  I understand there is concern that there could be a burden placed on
registrars.  It is important to bear in mind that this burden would not be
great.  Instead, the registrars receive a significant benefit: not being
subject to lawsuit by those (consumers, banks, IP owners, etc.) whose rights
are allegedly being violated by third-parties.  

2.  One can recall, in a slightly different context, that Network Solutions
was joined in numerous lawsuits (and had very significant legal expenses)
before the UDRP was implemented.  However, once the clear procedures were in
place, on-line intermediaries such as registrars were no longer needed to be
joined in these lawsuits.  Registrars were no longer stuck between the
proverbial rock-and-a-hard place.  They can offer services that are
tremendously valuable, while also having a clear system of rules that allow
individuals who are subject to abuse caused by third-parties to vindicate
their rights.  As long as registrars play by these rules, they are no longer
in the path of lawsuits that can arise.  We need to develop a similar
approach if an OPOC system is implemented.

Chris 

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-gnso-reg-sgc@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-reg-sgc@xxxxxxxxx] On
Behalf Of Ross Rader
Sent: Wednesday, May 30, 2007 8:27 PM
To: Goodendorf, Lynn (IHG)
Cc: gnso-reg-sgc@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [gnso-reg-sgc] Draft Final Report of Sub Group C

Goodendorf, Lynn (IHG) wrote:
> I see that Chris Gibson's comments on this are not in this string of
> emails so I have copied it below in this message.
> I believe he addresses the concerns you have.

Actually he doesn't. Chris has outlined one approach, which presumably 
would require registrants and registrars to pick up the tab for the 
challenge procedure. For once, I'd love to see a policy proposal 
accompanied by a user pay model.

Let me make another proposal - and I'm quite serious with this. Using 
competitive means, Registrars will provide a complete whois record for 
registrants engaged in commercial or suspicious activities at market 
rates. Those inquirers that do not wish to pay market rates for this 
clearly desirable data would have to satisfy themselves with the more 
limited publicly accessible data proposed under the OPOC proposal. 
Registrars would not be permitted to sell access to data about natural 
personals not engaged in commercial activities.

A major problem with the current whois policy, and even the OPOC, is 
that the pricing model associated with the service creates unlimited 
demand. It is not surprising that *everyone* wants unlimited access to 
the data, it is free - at least free to query (not free to provide, 
trust me). This creates ridiculous distortions in the market, none of 
which are we likely to solve with more regulation or policy.

-ross





<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>