ICANN/GNSO GNSO Email List Archives


<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

Re: [dow3tf] Revised TF3 Draft Recommendations

  • To: dow3tf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Subject: Re: [dow3tf] Revised TF3 Draft Recommendations
  • From: "Ross Wm. Rader" <ross@xxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Wed, 13 Oct 2004 00:00:00 -0400
  • Cc: registrars@xxxxxxxx
  • In-reply-to: <s163d257.029@thoth.oblon.com>
  • Organization: Tucows Inc.
  • References: <s163d257.029@thoth.oblon.com>
  • Reply-to: ross@xxxxxxxxxx
  • Sender: owner-dow3tf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • User-agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 0.7.3 (Windows/20040803)

Brian -

Thanks for specifically soliciting registrar input on this draft. The registrar constituency is heartened that the level of outreach we are seeing from your constituency is indicative of our respective capabilities to reach a mutually satisfactory conclusion. Given the moderate degree of input to these recommendations by the task force over the last few weeks, we are hopeful that the Intellectual Property Constituency will be amenable to modifying its proposal to accomodate the position of 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.

1a) We do not agree that it is appropriate to require a registrar to *simultaneously* verify a multitude of contact points given that the IPC requirement is simply to "ensure a valid point of contact" (http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/dow3tf/msg00277.html 0:37:54 - 0:43:47). Given that there are serial data verification processes in place at progressive registrars today and these appear to be meeting this requirement already (http://www.icann.org/whois/wdprs-report-final-31mar04.htm), we remain unconvinced that this additional level of rigor is required.

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.

2) Regarding II.a - We request that this condition should be made optional. Given the multitude of registrar business models, it would be inappropriate to burden smaller registrars with a mandatory requirement to cater to a specific class of customers that they may or may not be equipped to deal with.

3) Regarding II.3.B - We respectfully request that this entire clause be stricken from the draft. The constituency membership is not amenable to recommendations that turn the registrar/registrant relationship into a mechanism for enforcing economic sanctions for purportedly "abusive" behavior determined by extra-legal processes.

Lastly, I would also like to correct for the record a statement repeatedly made yourself on the 09/22/2004 conference call indicating that ensuring data accuracy is a requirement of the registrar accreditation agreement ( http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/dow3tf/msg00277.html 0:10:40 - 0:11:01 and 0:13:30 - 0:13:40). The current registrar accreditation agreement specifies that registrants are responsible for the accuracy of the data they provide to registrars. The registrar constituency is still unclear why the intellectual property constituency deems it appropriate to move this burden from registrants to registrars within the scope and mandate of this task force and formally requests that the task force explicitly answer this question as part of its recommendations to the GNSO Council.

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. It would be very helpful if Ross Rader could submit his comments and
participate in next week's call, if his schedule permits, so that we can assess where things stand.  Of
course the same thing holds true for all constituency representatives.

Here is the draft:
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

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.

<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>