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

[Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx>]

Hi,

As an individual member of the WG, I support these changes.

a.

On 8 aug 2007, at 06.22, Milton L Mueller wrote:

> 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