[dow3tf] Whois task force 3 teleconference notes 13 October 2004

["GNSO SECRETARIAT" <gnso.secretariat@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

[To:dow3tf[at]gnso.icann.org]

Please find the notes/minutes of the teleconference held on 13 October 2004.
If you would like any changes made, Please let me know.

Thank you.

Kind regards,

Glen de Saint Géry
GNSO Secretariat
************************************************
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 Registrars constituency
and the other constituencies.

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.













<!--#set var="bartitle" value="WHOIS Task Force 3 minutes"-->
<!--#set var="pagetitle" value="WHOIS Task Force 3 minutes"-->
<!--#set var="13 October 2004" value=""-->
<!--#set var="bgcell" value="#ffffff"-->
<!--#include virtual="/header.shtml"-->
<!--#exec cmd="/usr/bin/perl /etc/gnso/menu.pl 'WHOIS Task Force 3 minutes'"-->
<p align="center"><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><b>WHOIS Task Force 
  3 Teleconference October 13, 2004 - Minutes</b></font></p>
<p><b><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">ATTENDEES:<br>
  </font></b></p>
<p><b><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">GNSO Constituency representatives:<br>
  </font></b><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"> Intellectual Property 
  Interests Constituency - Brian Darville - Chair:<br>
  Registrars Constituency - Ross Rader<br>
  Non Commercial Users constituency - Frannie Wellings <br>
  Internet Service Providers and connectivity providers Constituency</font> - 
  <font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Greg Ruth</font><br>
  <font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Commercial and Business Users constituency 
  - Sarah Deutsch</font> <br>
  <font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Government Advisory Committee (GAC) 
  liaison - </font> <font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Suzanne Sene</font><br>
  <font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"> </font><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"> 
  <br>
  </font><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><b>GNSO Secretariat:</b> Glen 
  de Saint G&eacute;ry <br>
  <br>
  <b>Absent: </b></font><br>
  <font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">gTLD Registries constituency: - Ken 
  Stubbs</font> - <font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">apologies</font><br>
  <font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Intellectual Property Interests Constituency 
  - Kiyoshi Tsuru<br>
  Intellectual Property Interests Constituency - Terry Clark <br>
  At-Large Advisory Committee (ALAC) liaisons: - Vittorio Bertola <br>
  </font></p>
<p><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><b>ICANN Staff Manager</b>: Barbara 
  Roseman - absent - apologies <br>
  <br>
  <a href="http://gnso-audio.icann.org/WHOIS-20041013-tf3.mp3";>MP3 Recording</a><br>
  </font></p>
<p><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><a href="http://gnso.icann.org/meetings/agenda-whoistf-22Sep04.htm";>Agenda</a><br>
  <br>
  Agenda: <br>
  Comment on <a href="http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/dow3tf/msg00283.html";>Brian 
  Darville's recommendations</a>:</font></p>
<p><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">In preparation for next week's call, 
  set forth below is a revision of the two possible recommendations the Task Force 
  might consider. <br>
  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.<br>
  <br>
  Draft TF3 Recommendations<br>
  I. Steps to Verify & Correct Inaccuracy in Response to a Complaint <br>
  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: <br>
  1) email; <br>
  2) telephone number; <br>
  3) facsimile number; <br>
  or 3) postal mail. <br>
  If one method fails, then another method shall be used.<br>
  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. <br>
  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. <br>
  <br>
  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: <br>
  1) email; <br>
  2) telephone number; </font></p>
<p><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">or 3) facsimile number. <br>
  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. <br>
  <br>
  II. Additional Steps to Verify & Correct Inaccuracy in Response to a Complaint 
  </font></p>
<p><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">A. Registrar shall provide any complainant 
  with the option of expedited verification and correction.<br>
  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: <br>
  1. Registrar uses all of the following methods simultaneously to contact the 
  registrant: <br>
  a. email; <br>
  b. Telephone; <br>
  c. Facsimile;<br>
  d. Postal mail; and <br>
  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<br>
  3. If registrant does respond to inaccuracy notifications, registrar individually 
  verifies the accuracy of the following updated data elements: <br>
  a. email; <br>
  b. Telephone; <br>
  c. Facsimile; and <br>
  d. Postal mail. <br>
  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. 
  <br>
  <br>
  Brian Darville asked Ross Rader to walk through the <a href="http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/dow3tf/msg00284.html";>comments 
  from the Registrar constituency</a></font></p>
<p><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">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. <br>
  </font></p>
<p><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Strike the word <b>simultaneously</b>, 
  the process is serialized.</font></p>
<p><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">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&quot; <b>simultaneously&quot;</b> contacting 
  the registrant through at least two of the following four methods....<br>
  <br>
  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. </font></p>
<p><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">The registrars proposed more open 
  ended timelines<br>
  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. </font></p>
<p><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">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 
  Registrars constituency and the other constituencies.</font></p>
<p><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">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:<br>
  <b>Ross Rader</b> commented that the above condition should be made optional.<br>
  </font><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><br>
  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. 
  <br>
  <b>Ross Rader</b> proposed that the above paragraph should be taken out.<br>
  Finally he commented that the onus of the burden should be moved to the registrant 
  to keep data accurate, to which Brian Darville agreed.<br>
  <br>
  <b>Ross Rader </b>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.<br>
  <br>
  <b>Action:</b></font></p>
<p><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><b>Ross Rader</b> will revise the 
  draft and incorporate the suggested modifications.<br>
  <br>
  <b>Next Call:</b></font></p>
<p><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Discuss revised draft<br>
  <br>
  </font><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><b>Brian Darville thanked everyone 
  for their presence and participation and urged the constituencies to comment 
  on the mailing list.<br>
  The call ended at 11:10 EST, 16:10 UTC.<br>
  <br>
  </b> <b>Next call: Wednesday 20 October 2004, at </b><b> 7:30 Los Angeles,10:30 
  EST,15:30 UTC, 16:30 CET.<br>
  <br>
  <br>
  </b></font></p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>