Re: [dow3tf] TF3 — Revised Proposal prepared by IPC representatives
- To: Brian Darville <BDARVILLE@xxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: Re: [dow3tf] TF3 — Revised Proposal prepared by IPC representatives
- From: "Ross Wm. Rader" <ross@xxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 27 Oct 2004 10:09:06 -0400
- Cc: dow3tf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx, gnso.secretariat@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx, roseman@xxxxxxxxx, Bruce.Tonkin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- In-reply-to: <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Organization: Tucows Inc.
- References: <email@example.com>
- Reply-to: ross@xxxxxxxxxx
- Sender: owner-dow3tf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- User-agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 0.8 (Windows/20040913)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
In the interests of full disclosure, this discussion was had our
respective capacities as registrar employee's and not as representatives
of the registrar constituency. I have not had an opportunity to discuss
these terms with my constituency and will not be in a position to offer
any serious commentary or amendment until I do.
On 27/10/2004 9:32 AM Brian Darville noted that;
| Set forth below is a revised proposal prepared by representatives of
the IPC after a telephone conference yesterday between Bruce Tonkin,
Ross Rader, Steve Metalitz (IPC), Ryan Lehning (IPC) and myself. As I
understand it, Ross may be preparing a revision to paragraph C in the
following proposal. We will discuss this proposal on today's call.
| Here is the revised proposal:
| I. Steps to Verify & Correct Inaccuracy in Response to a Complaint
| A. 1. If a registrar receives a complaint about the accuracy of
| registrant data through the Whois Data Problems Reporting System, that
| registrar shall take reasonable steps to verify the accuracy of that
| data by contacting the registrant through at least two of the following
| four methods: 1) email; 2) telephone number; 3) facsimile number; or 4)
| postal mail.
| 2. If one method fails (e.g., email bounce-back;
| telephone or fax disconnected; or a return to sender message), the
| domain name may be placed immediately on hold; or, another method shall
| be used. If both of the two pursued methods fail, registrar shall place
| the domain name on hold. If a pursued method does not fail, registrar
| must allow the registrant 15 days to respond with accurate information.
| If it is apparent at any point in the process that a registrant has
| willfully provided inaccurate contact data, a registrar may immediately
| place the domain name on hold without first attempting to (further)
| contact the registrant.
| B. If a registrant responds to registrar notifications of inaccuracy
| within the 15 day time limit, providing updated data, registrar shall
| verify the accuracy of at least one of the following three updated data
| elements: 1) email; 2) telephone number; or 3) facsimile number.
| Verification may consist of the registrar using the updated data to
| effectively contact the registrant, confirming the registrant's
| correction of its contact data or by requesting that the registrant
| provide the registrar with "proof of authenticity" of the contact
| information (e.g., a photocopy of a driver's license or a utility bill).
| If one element remains inaccurate, registrar may place the domain name
| on hold. If one element is accurate, registrar shall verify the second
| element. If both elements remain inaccurate, registrar may place the
| domain name on hold or verify the third element. If the contact
| information remains inaccurate or unverified, the registrar shall place
| the domain name on hold.
| C. Registrars shall make their customers aware of the Whois Data
| Problems Reporting System as the means for bringing complaints with
| respect to Whois data. [Language to be proposed by Ross Rader for
| publicizing the WDPRS in advance of its use as the sole avenue for
| making complaints about Whois data].
Contact info: http://www.blogware.com/profiles/ross
Skydasher: A great way to start your day
My weblog: http://www.byte.org
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.3-nr1 (Windows XP)
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----