WHOIS Task Force 3 minutes

WHOIS Task Force 3 Teleconference October 13, 2004 - Minutes

ATTENDEES:

GNSO Constituency representatives:
Intellectual Property Interests Constituency - Brian Darville - Chair:
Registrars Constituency - Ross Rader
Non Commercial Users constituency - Frannie Wellings
Internet Service Providers and connectivity providers Constituency - Greg Ruth
Commercial and Business Users constituency - Sarah Deutsch
Government Advisory Committee (GAC) liaison - Suzanne Sene

GNSO Secretariat: Glen de Saint Géry

Absent:
gTLD Registries constituency: - Ken Stubbs - apologies
Intellectual Property Interests Constituency - Kiyoshi Tsuru
Intellectual Property Interests Constituency - Terry Clark
At-Large Advisory Committee (ALAC) liaisons: - Vittorio Bertola

ICANN Staff Manager: Barbara Roseman - absent - apologies

MP3 Recording

Agenda

Agenda:
Comment on Brian Darville's recommendations:

In preparation for next week's call, set forth below is a revision of the two possible recommendations the Task Force might consider.
This revision reflects a change of the time frame from 15 days to 30 days to accomodate comments received during the call on October 6, 2004. It would be helpful if everyone could review this draft and feel free to submit comments to the list before next week's call.

Draft TF3 Recommendations
I. Steps to Verify & Correct Inaccuracy in Response to a Complaint
A. If a registrar receives a complaint about the accuracy of registrant data, whether by the Whois Data Problems Reporting System, or by any other means, that registrar shall take reasonable steps to verify the accuracy of that data by simultaneously contacting the registrant through at least two of the following four methods:
1) email;
2) telephone number;
3) facsimile number;
or 3) postal mail.
If one method fails, then another method shall be used.
If both of the two pursued methods fail (e.g., email bounce-back; telephone or fax disconnected; or a return to sender message), registrar shall place the domain name on hold, allowing registrant 30 days to respond before the domain name is cancelled.
If it is apparent that a registrant has willfully provided inaccurate contact data, a registrar may immediately place the domain name on hold without first attempting to contact the registrant.

B. If a registrant responds to registrar notifications of inaccuracy within the 30 day time limit, providing updated data, registrar shall verify the accuracy of at least two 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 registrants correction of its contact data. If one element remains inaccurate, registrar shall verify the third element. If both remain inaccurate registrar shall immediately cancel the domain name registration.

II. Additional Steps to Verify & Correct Inaccuracy in Response to a Complaint

A. Registrar shall provide any complainant with the option of expedited verification and correction.
If this option is chosen, the registrar may charge a fee to be determined by registrar [not to exceed $xx] and shall promptly advise complainant of the completion of each of the following steps:
1. Registrar uses all of the following methods simultaneously to contact the registrant:
a. email;
b. Telephone;
c. Facsimile;
d. Postal mail; and
2. If at least two of the four contact methods fails, registrar immediately places domain name on hold, allowing registrant 30 days to respond before the domain name is cancelled; or
3. If registrant does respond to inaccuracy notifications, registrar individually verifies the accuracy of the following updated data elements:
a. email;
b. Telephone;
c. Facsimile; and
d. Postal mail.
B. A registrant whose domain name was cancelled or placed on hold due to inaccurate data, discovered through this expedited process, must first reimburse the complainants fee, plus a reasonable handling fee, to the registrar before re-activating or re-registering its domain name. The registrar shall promptly reimburse the complainant.

Brian Darville asked Ross Rader to walk through the comments from the Registrar constituency

1) Generally speaking, the registrar constituency position favors standardization where appropriate. In this case, the InterNIC Whois Data Problem Reporting System has quantifiably streamlined both the issue reporting and internal registrar response processes. Additionally, creating a single point of entry into the process introduces predictability into the complaint process therefore creating substantial benefits for registrants and complainants. Accordingly, we are in favor of recommendations that allow the community to standardize on this "platform" as the sole entry point into the data accuracy reporting process.

Strike the word simultaneously, the process is serialized.

A. If a registrar receives a complaint about the accuracy of registrant data, whether by the Whois Data Problems Reporting System, or by any other means, that registrar shall take reasonable steps to verify the accuracy of that data by" simultaneously" contacting the registrant through at least two of the following four methods....

B. If a registrant responds to registrar notifications of inaccuracy within the 30 day time limit, providing updated data, registrar shall verify the accuracy of at least two 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 registrants correction of its contact data. If one element remains inaccurate, registrar shall verify the third element. If both remain inaccurate registrar shall immediately cancel the domain name registration.

The registrars proposed more open ended timelines
1b) We do not agree that it is appropriate to specify mandatory action after a specific period of time. We are amenable to pursuing a policy recommendation that outlines appropriate actions after a specific period of time as long as these actions leave enough room for a registrar to deal with the specific facts of the situation at hand instead of automatically cancelling a domain name after a specified time period has elapsed.

Discussion indicated that the ISPC was in favour of enforcement mechanisms, while the Non Commercial Users Constituency agreed with flexibility so that each case could be examined on its merits.
It was agreed that Ross Rader would redraft the proposal and resubmit it to the task force.

A. Registrar shall provide any complainant with the option of expedited verification and correction. If this option is chosen, the registrar may charge a fee to be determined by registrar [not to exceed $xx] and shall promptly advise complainant of the completion of each of the following steps:
Ross Rader commented that the above condition should be made optional.

B. A registrant whose domain name was cancelled or placed on hold due to inaccurate data, discovered through this expedited process, must first reimburse the complainants fee, plus a reasonable handling fee, to the registrar before re-activating or re-registering its domain name. The registrar shall promptly reimburse the complainant.
Ross Rader proposed that the above paragraph should be taken out.
Finally he commented that the onus of the burden should be moved to the registrant to keep data accurate, to which Brian Darville agreed.

Ross Rader was concerned that no other constituency had commented on the draft and Brian Darville urged the constituencies to comment on the revised version that would follow the call.

Action:

Ross Rader will revise the draft and incorporate the suggested modifications.

Next Call:

Discuss revised draft

Brian Darville thanked everyone for their presence and participation and urged the constituencies to comment on the mailing list.
The call ended at 11:10 EST, 16:10 UTC.

Next call: Wednesday 20 October 2004, at 7:30 Los Angeles,10:30 EST,15:30 UTC, 16:30 CET.