Re: [dow3tf] Revised TF3 Draft Recommendations
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.
Draft TF3 Recommendations