[gnso-whois-wg] Proposed changes to Whois report 1.6

["Milton L Mueller" <mueller@xxxxxxx>]

These proposed changes have support from NCUC representatives and also some 
others. 

Section 1:

1. On line 88, replace "while simultaneously improving the ability to address 
issues relating inter alia to other public interest goals of consumer fraud and 
acts of bad faith by certain Registrants"... 

...with the phrase "while retaining the ability of legitimate parties to act 
against fraud and other illegal activities involving domains"

2. Delete lines 92-95. These lines inaccurately characterize the debate and are 
not needed.

3. Delete lines 114-119. These lines inaccurately characterize one side of the 
debate and are not needed.

Section 2:

Delete lines 178-179, add to "Support," a line saying, There is "Support" for 
the idea that implementation of [OPoC] verification would be too burdensome.

Line 229: Add to "Support: "The registrant alone must get consent." 

Add to list of AGREEDs at line 247:  A system of centralised accreditation of 
OPOCs by ICANN is neither scaleable nor practical." 

Section 3:

At line 313-14, change the phrase: "specify timely deadlines for actions by the 
OPOC" to "recommend guidelines for timely actions by the OPOC"

Downgrade from AGREE to SUPPORT:

Line 392: "There is a concern that if the Access function were to be subject to 
an authentication mechanism, then REVEAL may be needed in particular for the 
pursuit of criminal activity."

DELETE from line 406-410: "suspected fraudulent activity, suspected 
intellectual property infringement, suspected false declaration as to being a 
natural person, or where other criminal, civil or administrative laws may be 
infringed. 
OR reasonable evidence of inaccurate WHOIS data." 
(Reason: "reasonable evidence of actionable harm" is sufficient. False 
declaration and inaccurate Whois data are already covered by existing ICANN 
challenge procedures, no need to add it to the OPOC process.)  

UPGRADE TO SUPPORT:
Line 418: One view was that the RELAY test should be cumulative (an “AND” 
option). 

Section 4:

Line 479: Downgrade from AGREE to SUPPORT. Many registrars disagree with this, 
and so do some users.

Section 5:

Replace sentence at lines 543-545: "Sole traders working out of their homes can 
legitimately be classified as natural persons."

Section 6:

Replace line 557 (6.3 type access) with: "Query-based access to any domain but 
with contractual or legal restriction of queries to the records of particular 
domains and/or registrants needed to support a specific investigation."

Add to end of first sentence at line 598: "but with contractual/legal 
restriction of queries to the records of particular domains and/or registrants 
needed to support a specific investigation." 

At Lines 598-599, delete "Access would take place when there is “reasonable 
evidence of actionable harm.”" 

Modify AGREED at line 626-630 to: "There were circumstances where LEAs must 
have access described above (one or more of 6.2, 6.3) and that private actors 
are in some cases entitled to have access described in 6.2 above."

Add: "There is SUPPORT for the idea that there were circumstances where LEAs 
must have access described above (one or more of 6.2, 6.3, 6.4) and that 
private actors must have access described above (one or more of 6.2 and 6.3)."

Line 638-639: Upgrade to SUPPORT the statement "Private actors should be denied 
access described under 6.4."

Line 654-658 should not be characterized as "AGREEMENT" it is rather a 
description. Add to this list of options, "Self-certification backed up by a 
signed affidavit and penalties for misrepresentation." 

Lines 682-684: this is not AGREED, at best it commands SUPPORT, and is probably 
an ALTERNATE VIEW.

Lines 689-691: Change "Certain user members believed self-declaration was 
insufficient and that authentication was essential: thus OPOC implementation 
should wait until authentication systems existed" to "Certain user members 
believed self-declaration was insufficient and that authentication was 
essential: thus no access of the type 6.3 or 6.4 should be granted to private 
actors."

Upgrade the Statement in line 689-691 to SUPPORT, from "alternate view"

In all references to "challenge procedure" delete "by the registrar" 




No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition. 
Version: 7.5.476 / Virus Database: 269.11.8/940 - Release Date: 8/6/2007 4:53 PM