<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
RrSG Position re WHOIS Policy Review Team
- To: "whois-rt@xxxxxxxxx" <whois-rt@xxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: RrSG Position re WHOIS Policy Review Team
- From: "Clarke D. Walton" <clarke.walton@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 18 Apr 2011 02:53:47 -0400
April 17, 2011
Registrar Stakeholder Group Position Regarding
WHOIS Policy Review Team
BACKGROUND
The Registrar Stakeholder Group ("RrSG") is providing feedback regarding the
WHOIS Policy Review Team ("WHOIS RT"). This position paper captures the
overall sentiment expressed by the RrSG members who provided feedback about
this matter. Due to time constraints, however, no formal vote regarding this
position paper was taken.
RrSG POSITION
The RrSG generally supports the WHOIS RT's proposed plans contained in Section
1 (Scope of Work), Section 2 (Outreach Plan) and Section 3 (Action Plan).
These plans seem reasonable. The RrSG believes, however, that the WHOIS RT's
use of word "consumer trust" throughout these sections is cause for concern.
In the RrSG's view, defining the key term "consumer trust" will be challenging,
particularly through a consensus process. Accordingly, the RrSG suggests that
the WHOIS RT arrive at a temporary working definition of "consumer trust" that
allows the group to move forward in its mission while continually working to
create a more permanent definition of "consumer trust" that is eventually
derived through a consensus process.
The RrSG's primary concerns with the WHOIS RT's proposed plans center upon the
RT's existing definitions for a variety of key terms contained in Section 4,
including:
Definition 2 (Applicable Laws): This definition is adequate in part, with the
exception that UN declarations and resolutions are often non-binding and as
such inappropriate for the WHOIS RT's work. Accordingly, in the RrSG's view,
non-binding resolutions do not meet the appropriate threshold for an
"applicable law" and the WHOIS RT should remove these references from this
definition.
Definition 3 (Producers and Maintainers): The RrSG supports this definition.
Definition 4 (Consumers): The RrSG is concerned with the broad scope that the
word "Consumer" may encompass. As mentioned above, creating an overly broad
definition of "Consumer" will complicate the further definition of "consumer
trust." Accordingly, the RrSG recommends that the WHOIS RT view and interpret
the word "Consumer" narrowly and in terms of WHOIS specifically.
Notwithstanding the RrSG's concerns with these critical definitions, the RrSG
sincerely appreciates the work that the WHOIS RT has accomplished thus far and
the RrSG looks forward to providing additional input as the WHOIS RT advances
to the next steps outlined in its proposed plans.
CONCLUSION
The opinions expressed by the RrSG in this position paper should not be
interpreted to reflect the individual opinion of any particular RrSG member.
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|