ICANN/GNSO GNSO Email List Archives


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

[dow3tf] Revised IPC Proposal re WhoIS Data Accuracy

  • To: <Bruce.Tonkin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, <ross@xxxxxxxxxx>
  • Subject: [dow3tf] Revised IPC Proposal re WhoIS Data Accuracy
  • From: "Brian Darville" <BDARVILLE@xxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Thu, 21 Oct 2004 10:38:22 -0400
  • Cc: <dow3tf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, <gnso.secretariat@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, <roseman@xxxxxxxxx>
  • Sender: owner-dow3tf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx

As promised, I set forth below the feedback I have received from the IPC regarding Whois data accuracy.  This revised draft is similar to the first IPC draft.  It includes the mandatory language discussed yesterday, but also includes some of the provisions that the Registrars had deleted from the prior draft.  The IPC feels strongly that the WDRPS should not be the only means by which a complaint can be brought to the Registrar's attention.  Please note the new proposal that there be a direct link to the WDRPS in all Whois output along with a notice as set forth in point I. (C) below.  It also includes the cost reimbursement provision for the fee service of verifying data accuracy on an expedited basis, which I know the Registrars oppose. 

Ross, please provide the Registrars' comments to the list and everyone else at your convenience.

Bruce, please feel free to circulate this to the Council, but it would be best if you did so along with the latest Registrar version so that the points of differences between the IPC and the Registrars will be apparent.

Any discussion on the list before next Wednesday's call would also be helpful.

Here is the revised IPC Proposal:

10/20/04 Draft TF3 Recommendations – IPC Revised Proposal	

I. Steps to Verify & Correct Inaccuracy in Response to a Complaint

A. If a registrar receives a complaint about the accuracy of registrant data, through 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 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, but must first allow the registrant 30 days to respond with accurate information.  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 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 shall verify the third element.  If the contact information remains inaccurate or unverified, the registrar shall place the domain name on hold. 

C. Registrar shall include in all Whois output a link to the Whois Data Problems Reporting System along with the following text:

The registrant of this domain name is  required to provide accurate contact data for display in Whois and to keep it up to date.  If you believe that the data displayed here is not accurate or current, click here [insert link] to bring this to the attention of the domain name registrar, who is required to take steps to verify the data.

II. Additional Steps to Verify & Correct Inaccuracy in Response to a Complaint

A. Registrar may 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 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 complainant’s 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 >>>