WHOIS Task Force 3 and GNSO Council
Meeting held in Cape Town
December 1, 2004 - Notes ATTENDEES:
Task Force 3 members
Registrars Constituency - Ross Rader
Non Commercial Users constituency - Frannie Wellings
Internet Service Providers and connectivity providers Constituency - Greg Ruth
Commercial and Business Users constituency - Marilyn Cade - alternate
Intellectual Property Interests Constituency - Kiyoshi Tsuru
gTLD Registries constituency: - Ken Stubbs
At-Large Advisory Committee (ALAC) liaisons: - Vittorio Bertola
GNSO Council members
Registrars Constituency - Bruce Tonkin - GNSO Council Chair
Registrars Constituency - Tom Keller
Commercial and Business Users constituency - Philip Sheppard
Intellectual Property Interests Constituency - Niklas Lagergren
Intellectual Property Interests Constituency - Lucy Nichols
Internet Service Providers and connectivity providers Constituency - Tony Holmes
Nominating committee - Amadeu Abril l Abril
Nominating committee - Demi Getschko Observers:
gTLD Registries constituency chair - Marie Zitkov
gTLD Registries constituency - David Maher (tf1/2)
Nominating committee - Maureen Cubberley (not yet seated on GNSO Council)
ICANN Staff Manager: Barbara Roseman
GNSO Secretariat: Glen de Saint Géry
Absent:
Intellectual Property Interests Constituency - Brian Darville - Chair (tf3) - apologies
Commercial and Business Users constituency - Sarah Deutsch (tf3) - apologies
Intellectual Property Interests Constituency - Terry Clark (tf3) - apologies
Non Commercial Users constituency - Carlos Afonso - GNSO Council
Nominating committee - Alick Wilson - apologies
gTLD Registries constituency - Cart Karp - apologies
Commercial and Business Users constituency - Grant Forsyth - apologies
Bruce Tonkin, stated that in the Registrar Accreditation Agreement, Registrants were required to provide accurate information at the time of registering a domain name and reasonable steps should be taken if the registrant did not respond.
3.7.7.1 The Registered Name Holder shall provide to Registrar accurate and reliable contact details and promptly correct and update them during the term of the Registered Name registration, including: the full name, postal address, e-mail address, voice telephone number, and fax number if available of the Registered Name Holder; name of authorized person for contact purposes in the case of an Registered Name Holder that is an organization, association, or corporation; and the data elements listed in Subsections 3.3.1.2, 3.3.1.7 and 3.3.1.8.
3.7.8 Registrar shall abide by any specifications or policies established according to Section 4 requiring reasonable and commercially practicable (a) verification, at the time of registration, of contact information associated with a Registered Name sponsored by Registrar or (b) periodic re-verification of such information. Registrar shall, upon notification by any person of an inaccuracy in the contact information associated with a Registered Name sponsored by Registrar, take reasonable steps to investigate that claimed inaccuracy. In the event Registrar learns of inaccurate contact information associated with a Registered Name it sponsors, it shall take reasonable steps to correct that inaccuracy. 3.7.9 Registrar shall abide by any ICANN adopted.
Task force options for change and improvement of accuracy.
1. Verification process up front.
Registrars felt it would lead to significant expense since only a small portion of registrations caused a problem.
2. In the case of a complaint:
What kind of liabilities would there be?
- subjective judgment in deleting a name.
3. If the registrar were to take more proactive action, how much time would be needed to delete a name?
Highjacking could be encouraged.
4. What kind of data needs to be verified?
In the context of .com, the Registrant/Administrative/technical/billing contact is verified
Marilyn Cade proposed moving upfront verification off the table and continuing with complaint driven verification. She suggested that verification following a complaint, may require a an urgent ability to put a name on hold so that the name goes dark which would allow for a longer time period for verification before the name was deleted, if it had to be.
Registrars should be able to recover costs.
Informed registrants are aware of their responsibilities
Cost recovery works in the case of registrants doing the right thing. There are reconnection fees, and in many cases purposeful bad action will not happen.
Bruce Tonkin suggested defining some of the terms such as, if the e-mail address and the phone numbers were not working, the data is wrong. E-mail addresses were not considered a safe measure. Consideration should be given to developing countries where there are often problems with e-mail.
Under the UDRP, 20 days notice is given to notify a registrant.
Demi Getschko suggested a 30 day hold with the name not published in the DNS.
Summary:
A proposed way for the task force to advance forward was, when there was no feedback in terms of contact, data was inaccurate, notice had been given, there was no response, the name could be placed on hold and the website would go dark.
Phishing cases were not considered as there were many techniques used.
The meeting ended at 12:30 local time 10:30 UTC |
