Sorry, you need to enable JavaScript to visit this website.
Skip to main content

WHOIS Task Force 3 minutes

Last Updated:

WHOIS Task Force 3 Teleconference November 3, 2004 - Minutes


GNSO Constituency representatives:
Intellectual Property Interests Constituency - Brian Darville - Chair:

Commercial and Business Users constituency - Sarah Deutsch

gTLD Registries constituency: - Ken Stubbs

Internet Service Providers and connectivity providers Constituency - Greg Ruth

Government Advisory Committee (GAC) liaison - Suzanne Sene

GNSO Secretariat: Glen de Saint Géry


ICANN Staff Manager: Barbara Roseman - absent - apologies

Registrars Constituency - Ross Rader - apologies

Non Commercial Users constituency - Frannie Wellings

Intellectual Property Interests Constituency - Kiyoshi Tsuru

Intellectual Property Interests Constituency - Terry Clark

At-Large Advisory Committee (ALAC) liaisons: - Vittorio Bertola

MP3 Recording

Brain Darville welcomed everyone to the call and asked for views on the proposal sent to the mailing list and stated below:

He explained that the revisions had come about in discussion with representatives of the IPC after a telephone conference between Bruce Tonkin, Ross Rader, Steve Metalitz (IPC), Ryan Lehning (IPC) and himself.

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].

Ken Stubbs commented that the Registry constituency reviewed the last 2 copies and commented on:

1. The time period of 15 days in I a.

"registrar must allow the registrant 15 days"

The registry constituency all commented on the impracticality of the 15 days rule .

2. A very clear distinction should be made as to who has the responsibility or who communicates of with registrant. It is the Registrars responsibility to communicate with registrants in 1 a and 1 b.

Sarah Deutsch was waiting feed back from the Business constituency but had flagged the time period of 15 days.

Greg Ruth was happy with the proposed draft and felt that 15 or 30 days was not important probably 30 was more realistic but saw Ken Stubb's point of 30 days.

Ken Stubbs reported that the draft had been fully vetted by the Registry constituency representatives and that all the comments had been made. The biggest push back on the 15 days issue was from registry constituency members who have a significant presence outside the United States.

Brian Darville commented that Ross Rader felt the burden in Section C

"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. "

should be placed both on the Registries and the Registrars.

He explained that the issue turned on the manner in which registrars received complaints about inaccurate Whois data. The Registrars wanted all complaints to come through the WDPRS system. The Intellectual Property constituency's (IPC) view was that would be fine if the WDPRS were better established and better known but the IPC concern was that they wanted to make sure a complaint would get into the system. One idea would be to better promote the WDPRS by including some kind of other access to that system directly in Whois output.

Ken Stubbs commented on section C, that there was an obligation on the part of registrars to send out on an annual basis a reminder to each registrant reminding them that it was their responsibility to keep their Whois data accurate. Seeing that a significant number of people who filed complaints to date were domain name holders and involved in management of domain names it might be an idea to remind people of the WDPRS at the same time, so getting the message out to a broader community.

Brian Darville suggested that language to incorporate the idea should be drafted and circulated to the list before the next call.

Brian Darville would discuss the 15 day issue with the IPC.

Ken Stubbs suggested that Bruce Tonkin could possibly be asked to draft the language as he felt that it should come through the registrars constituency

Next Steps:

Brian Darville would revise the previous draft

Bruce Tonkin and Ross Rader could be requested to draft language for section C

Brian Darville thanked everyone for their presence and participation and ended the call at noon 11:00 EST, 16:00 UTC. 17:00 CET

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