[nc-whois] RE: removal of the parenthetical

[Steve Metalitz <metalitz@iipa.com>]

Here is my suggestion for the change to the paragraph explaining our change to item I(3)(B)(5), as discussed on our call today.  This paragraph would substitute for the one that now appears at the end of section II, part 3.  

 

 

Paragraph (e) should BE ACCEPTED WITH A MODIFICATION, by deleting the parenthetical.  This item only comes into play after the registration has been placed in “registrar hold” due to failure to provide accurate contact data, so there is already reason to question the veracity of the registrant. For the registration to be restored to the zone file, the registrant should need to do more than to send in "plausible" data (which passes what could be a minimal automated test) and to get a disposable email account to which he responds to one e-mail from the registrar. Some greater assurance of the accuracy of all the contact details (and thus of compliance with the registrant’s obligation under the RAA) should be established at this point, before restoration to the zone file. Confirmation of the accuracy of all newly provided contact points is not necessarily required to fulfill this step, although that ordinarily would be the best practice. 

 

-----Original Message-----
From: Ken Stubbs [mailto:kstubbs@digitel.net]
Sent: Wednesday, February 05, 2003 7:36 AM
To: nc-whois@dnso.org
Subject: [nc-whois] Fw: [registrars] current update on whois task force

The registrars have some issues here .

I have heard from numerous registrars (both publicly & privately)  expressing similiar concerns which i have previously mentioned to the TF

 

lets hope we can resolve these issues today

 

ken stubbs

 

 

 

 

----- Original Message -----

From: Bruce Tonkin

To: Ken Stubbs ; Registrars

Sent: Wednesday, February 05, 2003 2:47 AM

Subject: RE: [registrars] current update on whois task force

Hello Ken,

 

I notice that the current draft proposes that in addition to checking that an email address is correct after a name has been placed in HOLD status (e.g via sending a confirmation email to the new contact email address) that a registrar should do further checks (such as attempting to contact the registrant using other contact points e.g post or fax or phone etc).  This is a further cost on the registrar, and I do not support it (e.g manual labour cost and cost of postage etc).  I think email should be the minimal check REQUIRED.

 

If the email address is working, then a complainant has at least one verified method of communicating with the registrant.  The complainant is free to carry out their own checks of postal address etc, or alternatively the complainant could pay the registrars costs in doing further checks.  It is not reasonable that a registrar should incur further costs as a result of failure of a registrant to provide correct details.  Alternatively a registrant may be charged to update contact details after a name has been placed on HOLD just as they are charged for retrieving a name in the Redemption Grace Period.

 

So I recommend that this change to the implementation committees suggestion not be accepted.  It is what I call scope creep.  If it is accepted, then the WHOIS Task Force should be made aware that as a consequence registrars will need to charge either the registrant or the complainant for the additional costs.  The WHOIS Task Force should consider whether the burden of costs should lie with the registrant or the complainant in their suggested procedure.

 

I note the implementation committee also recommended a review process for the new WHOIS recommendations and also recommended a 30 day period for a registrant to respond to a request.

 

Regards,

Bruce

 

-----Original Message-----
From: Ken Stubbs [mailto:kstubbs@digitel.net]
Sent: Wednesday, February 05, 2003 4:26 AM
To: Registrars
Subject: [registrars] current update on whois task force

 

the whois task force has been concentrating in the last 2 weeks on accuracy & bulk access issues.

the current report draft can be seen at:

 

http://does-not-exist.net/final-report/final-report-feb03-030201v0.html

 

I would greatly appreciate any comments you may have on the draft

 

thanks

 

ken stubbs