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

["David W. Maher" <dmaher@xxxxxxx>]

I support the changes proposed in the following message:
David W. Maher
Senior Vice President - Law & Policy
Public Interest Registry
1775 Wiehle Ave, #102A
Reston, VA 20190  USA
(v) +1-312-876-8055
(f)  +1-312-876-7934
http://www.pir.org

CONFIDENTIALITY NOTE:
This e-mail and any attachments are confidential and may be protected 
by legal privilege. If you are not the intended recipient, be aware 
that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of this e-mail or 
any attachment is prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in 
error, please notify us immediately by returning it to the sender and 
deleting this copy from your system. Thank you for your cooperation.


> Subject: [gnso-whois-wg] Proposed changes to Whois report 1.6
> Date: Wed, 8 Aug 2007 00:22:05 -0400
> From: "Milton L Mueller" <mueller@xxxxxxx>
> To: <gnso-whois-wg@xxxxxxxxx>
>
> 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"