RE: [gnso-irtp-pdp-jun08] Transfer Process: Internal Feedback on Issue I.

["Steele, Barbara" <BSteele@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

All,
There have been some very good exchanges.  I agree with Michael's
comments below.  Further, I believe that we are overlooking the fact
that Registrars may elect to make the Registrant e-mail address
publically available, just as Registries do.  Of course, there is always
the the privacy law concerns that have been raised which warrant
additional research and investigation.  Those concerns would apply to
both Registries and Registrars so, as Michael indicates below, does it
matter whether it is the Registry or the Registrar that is required to
maintain the data?  I agree with him that it does not.  I would also go
so far as to say that it also does not matter who would be responsible
for publishing this data.  In previous discussions, we considered the
the overarching concern that has been raised over security.  Do the
other members of the group now feel that security is no longer an issue?
The feedback that I have received from the other Registries has
indicated that they are not seeing many transfers issues being brought
to them for resolution under The TDRP.  As I indicated, before, VeriSign
has received more disputes than the other registrars but, given the
large number of transfers that occur each day, the number of Requests
for Enforcement received and processed is not proportional.  Is this
because the Registrant e-mail address is not currently publically
available?  I don't know that this is a question that any of us can
answer but I do think that it warrants some consideration.
 
-------------------------------------------------------
Barbara Steele
Compliance Officer / Director of Policy
VeriSign Naming Services
bsteele@xxxxxxxxxxxx <blocked::mailto:bsteele@xxxxxxxxxxxx> 
Direct: 703.948.3343
Mobile: 703.622.1071
Fax:  703.421.4873
21345 Ridgetop Circle
Dulles, VA  20166


Notice to Recipient:  This e-mail contains confidential, proprietary
and/or Registry Sensitive information intended solely for the recipient
and, thus may not be retransmitted, reproduced or disclosed without the
prior written consent of VeriSign Naming and Directory Services.  If you
have received this e-mail message in error, please notify the sender
immediately by telephone or reply e-mail and destroy the original
message without making a copy.  Thank you.

 

________________________________

From: owner-gnso-irtp-pdp-jun08@xxxxxxxxx
[mailto:owner-gnso-irtp-pdp-jun08@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Michael
Collins
Sent: Thursday, September 11, 2008 6:58 AM
To: 'IRTP-A '
Subject: RE: [gnso-irtp-pdp-jun08] Transfer Process: Internal Feedback
on Issue I.



"*  To put some boundaries on the question of registrant email
availability:  We established during yesterday's call that Registrant
Email is collected and maintained by all registrars, and submitted to
all "Thick" Registries.  A quick check of gTLD WHOIS data shows that
Registrant Email is also displayed for all Thick Registries.  So Mike
O.'s point about the elephant in the room is accurate, as this problem
is most frequently associated with the Thin registries, esp. COM / NET."

 

James and Mikey,

 

It seems to that whether a registry is thick or thin is masking the real
policy issue, which is whether registrant email address is included in
whois data. If we could make .com and .net registries thick, would that
require them to include registrant email address in whois data? I do not
think so. If we can require that registrant email address be included in
whois data, does it matter whether it is the registry or the registrar
that is required to maintain whois data? Not that I can see.

 

I apologize if this is clear to everyone else and I just don't get it.
The difference may be more of an implementation issue that policy issue
and my understanding of implementation process is limited.

 

Best regards,

Michael Collins

Internet Commerce Association <http://www.internetcommerce.org/> 

+1. 202 657 4570

+1. 407 242 9009 mobile