<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
[gnso-whois-study] WHOIS Studies Recommendations
- To: gnso-whois-study@xxxxxxxxx
- Subject: [gnso-whois-study] WHOIS Studies Recommendations
- From: "James M. Bladel" <jbladel@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 21 Apr 2008 08:58:08 -0700
<html><body>Liz and Group:<br><br><div>I agree with the meta-position that
conducting any of
these studies is a stall, and will not likely break the impasse on this
issue. For example, any study results that conclusively challenge the
position of any constituency will probably be questioned in terms of
methodology, applicability, etc. Granted, I only have a few
meetings' experience on the issue, but it is clear that there are
principals in conflict. Any material changes on this issue will probably
originate externally from ICANN (via local laws, which are already have an
impact).<br><br>Also, I am concerned that ICANN will continue to release
regional registrars/registries from their WHOIS obligations entirely.
Relaxing this requirement for some entities, but not others, could
result in a competitive disparity as registrant choices are not
restricted by geography or jurisdiction. Registrants who are concerned
about privacy would just
transfer to a registrar in the most restrictive locality, or avoid gTLDs in
favor of the most appropriate ccTLD. Creating this disparity could
be seen as
contrary to the ICANN Core Value #6 to promote a competitive
environment.<br><br>Some of my more specific concerns about the suggested
studies:<br></div> <div> </div> <div>Category
#1. Creating test email addresses cannot hope to be (a) statistically
significant or (b) yield meaningful results within a timely manner. Surveying
registrars for this data may, if publicized, compromise their internal
anti-fraud and privacy protection methods and procedures.</div>
<div> </div> <div>Category
#2. There is already an existing policy recommendation pending that allows
registrars to seek a waiver on WHOIS obligations that conflict with
local law.</div> <div> </div> Categories #3, #4, #6, #7. Studies
categorized as testing the availability, adoption rates, registrant
demand, and motivation of Privacy / Proxy services constitute market
research. It is therefore unlikely that providers of these services
will agree to provide internal data / customer statistics. Also, any
findings could be viewed as having significant value to these
providers, and may initiate or alter their internal product development
efforts. <br><br>Categories #5 and #6 would also be dependent upon
proprietary information, and generate "test" disputes which may or may
not meet the Proxy Registrar's threshold or evaluation criteria for
fulfilling the request (which would construed as non-compliance).
<br><br>Category
#7 is already addressed under the WHOIS Data Reminder Policy, and
section 3.7.7.2 of the RAA, and other compliance efforts<br><br>Thank
you,<br><br>J.<br><br><br>James M. Bladel<br><a
href="http://GoDaddy.com";>GoDaddy.com</a><br><a
href="mailto:jbladel@xxxxxxxxxxx"; mce_href="mailto:jbladel@xxxxxxxxxxx";><a
href="mailto:jbladel@xxxxxxxxxxx";>jbladel@xxxxxxxxxxx</a></a><br><br></body></html>
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|