RE: [gnso-vi-feb10] Proposed Addendum to Proposals
- To: Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@xxxxxxxxx>, "Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx" <Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: RE: [gnso-vi-feb10] Proposed Addendum to Proposals
- From: Jeff Eckhaus <eckhaus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 15 Jun 2010 09:12:29 -0700
Alan - Port 43 monitoring and compliance is an issue that I know ICANN monitors
constantly in an automated fashion and enforces regularly. It is a topic I have
spoken to them at length about and know the details of.
I think before we make any judgment on their ability and the work they do we
should ask them about it. Making a judgment based on an unverified,
non-reviewed story by someone in CircleID is not proof that there is a problem,
especially from this author.
From: owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx] On
Behalf Of Alan Greenberg
Sent: Monday, June 14, 2010 9:32 PM
Subject: Re: [gnso-vi-feb10] Proposed Addendum to Proposals
At 14/06/2010 04:54 PM, Jeff Eckhaus wrote:
>Those opposed to JN2 and other proposals seem to agree that
>cross-ownership is appropriate, but that ICANN will not be able to
>police any restrictions on data sharing between a registry and
>registrar. They believe that we cannot simply rely on Registrars to
>adhere to a signed agreement. Thus, because compliance will be too
>difficult to enforce, we must limit cross-ownership.
For an interesting example of the level of registrar adherence to their signed
agreements, and of ICANN's ability to monitor even simple things, take a look
at http://www.circleid.com/posts/who_is_blocking_whois/ if you haven't already
done so. NOTE: This had NOTHING to do with VI. But it is an example of a case
where compliance is moderately easy, there is little to be gained by a
principled registrar not following the agreement, and monitoring is not
terribly onerous, albeit somewhat tedious if not automated.