Re: [gnso-whois-wg] Agenda July 11 call

[Dan Krimm <dan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

At 5:16 PM +0200 7/9/07, Philip Sheppard wrote:

>3. Section 3.2 "REVEAL" versus "on request rapid take down by Registrar
>when timely RELAY or
>REMEDY fail".


Philip,

Thanks for the agenda.  I would suggest that this 3rd agenda item be
reworded to replace "on request rapid take down" with "take down
procedures".

While the idea I had in mind recently (and I believe Milton also had in
mind) was that once a case has been legally vetted then when it comes to
the registrar from the vetting authority the registrar should not be in the
position of making any judgments regarding the case, so from the
registrar's point of view the take down would indeed be rapid (Milton used
the words "immediate action").

But I'd like to underscore that this presupposes an explicit legal vetting
of the case from a certified authority of some sort, to whom the registrar
answers.  So from the point of view of a random complainant, there would be
no expectation of "on request rapid take down" in *all* cases simply
because there was not a "timely RELAY or REMEDY".  The "request" needs to
come from a legal authority.

In the case of, say, certified anti-phishing authorities, the legal vetting
would presumably be in place, and along with an explicit audit trail with
well-defined criteria for time-sensitive cases there is no reason to expect
any significant delays.  But if some random large complainant seeks to
harass a small registrant in an anti-competitive manner (or to try to force
legal response that would reveal registrant's shielded contact
information), this should not meet with immediate response without some
form of due process.

Bottom line: we are talking about at least four players in this system: (1)
registrant (including OPoC as agent for registrant), (2) registrar, (3)
complainant, (4) legal authority.  The "rapidity" in this configuration is
associated chiefly with the last step between the legal authority and the
registrar.  In certain cases, the complainant and complaint-case-type will
be pre-vetted, and thus it will be rapid for the complainant as well.  But,
not all complainants should expect rapid response in all cases, especially
in the absence of legal vetting.  This was the gist of Milton's reply to
Adam about this.

I think my suggested edit above will capture this properly for the purposes
of this meeting.  The original version seems to pre-suppose certain
characteristics of the system that probably ought not be there.

Thanks,
Dan