[nc-whois] Co-chair comments
Thanks, Steve. I've provided some comments... just a few. MC -----Original Message----- From: Steve Metalitz [mailto:metalitz@iipa.com] Sent: Tuesday, February 04, 2003 9:50 PM To: Steve Metalitz; 'Thomas Roessler'; 'nc-whois@dnso.org' Subject: RE: [nc-whois] Final report: Next iteration posted. As promised, attached is the revised (redlined) Section II, for discussion tomorrow. Steve Metalitz -----Original Message----- From: Steve Metalitz Sent: Tuesday, February 04, 2003 11:58 AM To: Steve Metalitz; 'Thomas Roessler'; nc-whois@dnso.org Subject: RE: [nc-whois] Final report: Next iteration posted. On further reflection I think it is important to make a small adjustment in the revisions proposed by the Whois Implementation Committee. In item 3(b)(5) (for some reason this is numbered 3, not 5, in Thomas' latest iteration) I suggest changing the first words in the parenthetical from "for example by" to "including but not limited to". This item would then read: "For a name to be removed from REGISTRAR-HOLD status to active status, the registrant must contact the registrar with updated WHOIS information (as per (3) above), and the registrar must confirm that the registrant is contactable via this new information (including but not limited to requiring that the registrant respond to an email sent to a new email contact address)." As mentioned below, this item only comes into play after the registration has been placed in registrar hold, so there is already reason to question the veracity of the registrant. I question whether the registration should be restored to the zone file if the registrant simply sends in "plausible" data and gets a hotmail account to which he responds to one e-mail from the registrar. There should be some greater assurance of the accuracy of all the contact details. This wording would leave it up to the registrar to decide which other contact points would be tested (the best practice would be to test them all) but would make it clear that it can't be just e-mail. I will plan to reflect this in the revised section II of the TF report (comment on Whois implementation committee report) which I will circulate later today. Of course, this is all subject to our discussion on tomorrow's call. Steve Metalitz -----Original Message----- From: Steve Metalitz [mailto:metalitz@iipa.com] Sent: Friday, January 31, 2003 6:19 PM To: 'Thomas Roessler'; nc-whois@dnso.org Subject: RE: [nc-whois] Final report: Next iteration posted. Regarding item 3(b)(3)-(5), in the spirit of cooperation (or is it exhaustion?), my current thinking is to accept the language proposed by the Implementation Committee, but to address the following issues in the Part II Discussion section: (1) Second sentence of (3): this implies that some human evaluation of the acceptability of the justification is required. (2) We interpret (4) as dealing with no response (or unacceptable response) to the second inquiry provided for in (3). The time period certainly should be brief in this case since the registrar has already made contact with the registrant in step 2. (3) Since the Registrar Advisory already indicates that "reasonable steps" to contact the registrant means using all available means, the "contactability" requirement of point 5 ordinarily means contactability through all means (mail, phone, fax, e-mail). Remember that this is for a registration that has already been placed on registrar hold, meaning there is already very strong grounds for questioning the accuracy of the data. I would be interested in your thoughts about whether these points should be expressed in the text of the recommendation (by amending what came from the Implementation Committee) rather than just in our Discussion. I think this might be needed, especially as to the last point above, but I am planning to sleep on it. Steve Metalitz -----Original Message----- From: Thomas Roessler [mailto:roessler-mobile@does-not-exist.net] Sent: Friday, January 31, 2003 2:20 PM To: nc-whois@dnso.org Subject: [nc-whois] Final report: Next iteration posted. The next iteration of our final report is available at <http://does-not-exist.net/final-report/final-report-feb03-030131v2.html>. I hope I have captured all relevant changes from our conference call today. I have also added proposed additional wording on the redemption grace period policy. It's not perfect -- improvements welcome. Have a nice evening, -- Thomas Roessler <roessler@does-not-exist.org> Domain Names Whois TF DRAFT 2 section on Imp Cmte report sjm 020403.doc |