NCSG-DISCUSS Archives

NCSG-Discuss

NCSG-DISCUSS@LISTSERV.SYR.EDU

Options: Use Forum View

Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Subject:
From:
Danny Younger <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
Danny Younger <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Thu, 5 Oct 2006 05:35:55 -0700
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (69 lines)
Veni,

I would appreciate receiving a clarification regarding
point 5 in the ICANN Affirmation of Responsibilities. 
This point states (in part):

"TLD Management:  ICANN shall continue to enforce
existing policy relating to WHOIS, such existing
policy requires that ICANN implement measures to
maintain timely, unrestricted and public access to
accurate and complete WHOIS information, including
registrant, technical, billing and administrative
contact information."

My questions are as follows:

1.  The public presentation of billing contact
information is not a current requirement under the
terms of the Registrar Accreditation Agreement and as
such does not constitute an element of existing policy
relating to WHOIS.  Why then is the Board stipulating
that unrestricted public access to billing contact
information is an element of current WHOIS policy?

2.  What constitutes "enforcement" of existing policy
relating to WHOIS?  Does this mean that the use of
proxy services will be banned by ICANN?  Have
Directors discussed this possibility?

3.  As there seem to be many issues associated with
point 5, have Directors discussed the possibility of
seeking a clarifying amendment under the terms of
Section IIIC of the Joint Agreement?  Which Directors
favored asking for a clarification?  Which Directors
opposed such a move?

4.  Why didn't ICANN act to affirm the enforcement of
other policies (such as those that focus on security
by requiring registrant data escrow)?  Why did the
Board agree to single out only WHOIS policy for
enforcement?

As always, looking forward to your elucidations,

Danny



--- Veni Markovski <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> At 04:25 PM 04.10.2006 '?.'ÿˆö  -0400, Milton
> Mueller wrote:
> >Twomey distances himself and ICANN from the new
> JPA. Good.
> 
> Milton,
> I guess that doesn't change your opinion, right?
> 
> 
> 
> Sincerely,
> Veni Markovski


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com 

ATOM RSS1 RSS2