RE: [gnso-whois-wg] Draft outcomes report v 1.6

["Metalitz, Steven" <met@xxxxxxx>]

 Thanks to Avri and Milton for their detailed comments.  While I do not
support many of them in their current form, I have a few reactions and
suggestions. 

Avri's points regarding the Implementation Options box in section 3.1
are well taken.  Actually, none of the points in the box makes much
sense in the situation in which the Registrant is his/her own OPOC,
since in that case the Registrant's full contact information will be
displayed.  Perhaps line 323 should read:
"These implementation requirements may include the following, in
situations in which someone other than the Registrant is designated as
the OPOC:" 
 
I agree with Milton that the phrasing of the 6.3-type access is not
quite right, though I disagree with his re-phrasing.  How about changing
line 598  to read:  
"This type of access would be query-based to undisplayed data for any
domain, subject to limitations on the purposes of access and the uses to
be made of the data obtained."  

The .NAME extensive Whois  service would be an example of such type 6.3
access. 

Regarding the options listed in lines 656-658 for access mechanisms,
Milton's suggested third option could be accommodated by revising the
first option (line 656) to read, "Self-certification by the Accessor,
with safeguards such as penalties for misrepresentation or abuse." 
  
A couple of additional comments:  
The continued use of "bulk" to describe situations other than bulk
access under the current RAA is confusing.  For instance, port 43 access
is not the same as bulk access under the RAA, but such access would
qualify as type 6.4 access as I understand  it.   To reduce this
confusion,  I recommend omitting the word "bulk" on lines 558 and 608. 

Regarding lines 689-691, it occurs to me that there is considerable
support, and perhaps even agreement (though I am sure not unanimity),
for the following statement: "OPOC implementation should wait until a
viable and broadly supported mechanism for access under this section has
been developed."  

Finally, regarding the new Section 8:  while I have no objection to the
specific topics listed for further study, it could be misleading to
characterize a group of them (lines 768-769) as "an assessment and
comparison of the incremental costs of OPOC implementation versus the
benefits anticipated."  I doubt that "OPOC implementation" as a whole is
sufficiently well focused to allow for a meaningful study.  Perhaps
lines 768-770 should be replaced with, "cost-related studies,
including:".  

I would also call attention to the GAC proposal for a study  to "gather
information on gTLD registrations and registrants and how Whois data is
used and misused."  This should also be listed as a topic for further
study in Section 8. 

Steve Metalitz

 

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-gnso-whois-wg@xxxxxxxxx
[mailto:owner-gnso-whois-wg@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Avri Doria
Sent: Wednesday, August 08, 2007 8:24 AM
To: gnso-whois-wg@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [gnso-whois-wg] Draft outcomes report v 1.6

Hi,

Being given to the creation of tables,  I have created a table that
lists each of the recommendations (insofar as I could locate them), the
agreement level assigned to it in 1.6, my individual viewpoint on that
recommendation, the section it is to be found in and the line number
from http://gnso.icann.org/drafts/draft-report-whois-wg-16.pdf.

I have enclosed this table in pdf form.  If any other participant of the
WG wishes to use the same method to indicate their viewpoint I can send
you the doc file with the opinion column empty.  ( Be warned, I use open
office so the table may be iffy in genuine Microsoft products. :-)

a.