RE: [Fwd: RE: [registrars] [Fwd: [gnso-whois-wg] Draft final report Whois group v 1.5]]

[Hugh Dierker <hdierker2204@xxxxxxxxx>]

This must be small enough as to not be a profit center, otherwise the abuses 
flow in the opposite direction.
   
  Eric

Doug Isenberg <disenberg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
  Can anyone suggest what the actual "small fee" in this context might be,
since "small" may differ depending upon one's perspective.

Doug Isenberg


-----Original Message-----
From: owner-gnso-whois-wg@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-whois-wg@xxxxxxxxx]
On Behalf Of Milton L Mueller
Sent: Friday, July 20, 2007 9:18 AM
To: ross@xxxxxxxxxx; gnso-whois-wg@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [Fwd: RE: [registrars] [Fwd: [gnso-whois-wg] Draft final report
Whois group v 1.5]]


I think the idea of charging for services rendered makes a lot of sense in
this context. As Ross suggests, it is both a justice issue (just
compensation for the people doing the work) and a "smart policy" issue, in
that "free" services tend to get used excessively in an automated
environment and a simple, small fee reduces usage to those who really need
it for a legitimate and important purpose. 

--MM

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-gnso-whois-wg@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-whois-wg@xxxxxxxxx]
On Behalf Of Ross Rader
Sent: Thursday, July 19, 2007 3:28 PM
To: gnso-whois-wg@xxxxxxxxx >> 'gnso-whois-wg'
Subject: [Fwd: RE: [registrars] [Fwd: [gnso-whois-wg] Draft final report
Whois group v 1.5]]

Please find below some additional commentary on this draft from Tom
Barrett of Encirca, a member of the Registrar Constituency. Tom is
speaking only for himself, but I think he makes some great points. If I
receive any other feedback from non-WG members, I will also pass them along.

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: RE: [registrars] [Fwd: [gnso-whois-wg] Draft final report Whois
group v 1.5]
Date: Thu, 19 Jul 2007 15:17:01 -0400
From: Thomas Barrett - EnCirca 
Reply-To: 
Organization: EnCirca, Inc.
To: , "'Registrars Constituency'"


Ross,

Good job on this. Some comments:

Summary:

These new procedures involve a huge amount of development effort for
Registrars to develop.

Similar to when the RESTORE procedure was introduced and registries were
able to recover the implementation costs, Registrars will need a way to
recover costs of implementation of OPOC.

I recommend we should use a "pay-for-use" model here. Registrars should be
able to charge third-party users a nominal fee for REVEAL and ACCESS to
recover costs.

This new proposal is also rife with opportunities for abuse for REVEAL and
ACCESS requests. A nominal fee would discourage the inevitable abuse.

Best regards,

Tom Barrett
EnCirca


Here are some more detailed comments:

There are several aspects of verification that do not make it workable:

I assume this process applies to renewals as well as new registrations? The
document does not address how it work for renewals. Chaos will result if
lack of verification at renewal time result in disruption to a domain's DNS

Lines 132-134:
The existing registrant community will be slow to understand this new
requirement. Our experience with .pro and .travel is that it can take weeks
to complete a registration process. (.pro provides for 60 days and even
this is often missed)

Lines 137-139:
If the intent is to block resolution of the name (a la kids.us) until
verification, then this is best done by the registries.

Lines 140-141:
This is not workable for certain tld's. For example, .travel does not have
an ADD Grace period, so there are no refunds for misspelled domains, etc.
Since payment is done in a card-not-present environment, cancelling a
registration for failed verification either means the registrar taking a
loss while the registry gets paid, or screwing the customer and risking a
charge-back.

Given the trend to further limit the Add Grace period and charge fees for
deletions, this could be a hidden cost of the OPOC.

Lines 149-150, 160-161
Having the registrar place a name "on hold" is a totally new and separate
development effort in addition to the email verification. Today, this is
handled at the registry-level for .jobs, .pro, and perhaps other stld's.


Lines 317-322
Why should registrant info be revealed for alleged behavior? For example,
if there is alleges false whois info which turns out to be accurate, why
"reveal" anything?

Lines 326-332
Change "hours" to "days". Change "days" to "weeks"

Lines 416-420.
This is a false statement when it imples the full whois database is
available today. The implication is that a public utility is being lost and
needs to be addressed somehow.

Registrars have a long-standing practice of allowing registrants to opt-out
of being included in bulk access.

Lines 473-475
Free bulk access via port-43! What happened to paying for bulk access?

New paragraph for Section 6:
Registrars should be able to charge for requests for REVEAL and ACCESSS.








-------- Original Message --------
Subject: [gnso-whois-wg] Draft final report Whois group v 1.5
Date: Thu, 19 Jul 2007 13:33:33 +0200
From: Philip Sheppard 

To: 
References: <469F0B7D.9020700@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>


WHOIS working group members,

I attach version 1.5 of our draft report.
I hope we have more or less completed productive discussion on the key
issues.
If there are additional areas where you would still like to make input
please do so not by expressing opinion or hope (we've done that!) but by
proposing methods that are practical, cost effective and capable of
implementation.

The final version of the report will have several additions made by staff to
bring it into line with standard format such as references back to the group
charter, record of discussions, etc. But to make our life in this large
group as simple as possible the current format should be easier to follow
with respect to its policy recommendations.

What we need to hear now are any divergences to the agreed, supported or
alternate views outlined in the draft.
Please do this NOT by use of the tracking function in Word but by e-mail and
reference to the line number in the report.
(Multiple author word tracking is almost impossible to edit and messes up
the line numbering function so making discussion on any new points
troublesome.)

Lets structure this in two parts.
Part 1 :
- Sections 1 - 4
Input now and the teleconference of 25 July

Part 2:
- Sections 5 to the end
Input from 25 July and the teleconference of 1 August.

Philip
Chairman




--
Regards,

Ross Rader
Director, Retail Services
Tucows Inc.

http://www.domaindirect.com
t. 416.538.5492





-- 
Regards,

Ross Rader
Director, Retail Services
Tucows Inc.

http://www.domaindirect.com
t. 416.538.5492


No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition. 
Version: 7.5.476 / Virus Database: 269.10.10/908 - Release Date: 7/19/2007
6:10 PM


No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition. 
Version: 7.5.476 / Virus Database: 269.10.10/908 - Release Date: 7/19/2007
6:10 PM





       
---------------------------------
Get the free Yahoo! toolbar and rest assured with the added security of spyware 
protection.