Re: [dow3tf] Whois tf 3 draft notes teleconf 3 Nov. 2004

["Brian Darville" <BDARVILLE@xxxxxxxxx>]

Just to set the record straight.

Noone stated that this is a consensus document at this point.  However, based on the telephone conference with Bruce and Steve Metalitz and others, it was my understanding that you were going to raise these issues with the registrar constituency and that you would draft a proposal regarding item C.  At least during that call, you indicated that you thought the proposals in sections I. A. and B. were workable.  The document is not simply an IPC document.  Indeed most of the ideas it contains grew out of input from both you and Bruce Tonkin going back about two months.  You are simply wrong in stating that this is an IPC document.

Regarding the consensus issue, on yesterday's call the other constituencies present seemed to suggest that this latest draft is a basis for moving forward, although people generally wanted the 15-day limit changed to 30 days, and the BC now has provided some additional comments.

Regarding Item C, we await meaningful input from the Registrar Constituency regarding publicizing the WDPRS.  It is inconsistent to say that reports can only come through the WDPRS when that system is not terribly well known.

The comment regarding Item C that you say is incorrect is based directly on statements you have made.  Feel free to get the Registry constituency position on this and provide some meaningful input.

Bruce has gotten involved because the Task Force is not making much progress and what little progress we have made probably stems from his involvement.  

At this point, it seems to me you need to get the Registar's position and circulate it.  

Brian

>>> "Ross Wm. Rader" <ross@xxxxxxxxxx> 11/03/04 07:12PM >>>
 > If you would like anything changed, please let me know.

Yes - I would like to request clarification on four items -

a) the telephone call Brian refers to was to discuss the IPC proposal 
and provide feedback on an informal basis. This is not a consensus 
document and, in my opinion, it still simply an IPC proposal. It 
contains several revisions that came about as a result of our 
conversation, but neither Bruce, myself nor the registrar constituency 
are endorsing its contents at this time.

b) I have made it clear on several occasions that the registrar position 
is that using Whois as a publicity mechanism is inappropriate, however 
if the IPC wishes to pursue their request at a policy level, it would 
most make sense to implement this in the centralized registry output.

This comment;

"Brian Darville commented that Ross Rader felt the burden in Section C
"C. Registrars shall make their customers aware of the Whois Data 
Problems Reporting System as the means for bringing complaints with 
respect to Whois data. "should be placed both on the Registries and the 
Registrars."

...if correctly captured by the minutes, is inaccurate.

c) If Registrar input is required, it should come from myself and not 
Bruce Tonkin unless he has been appointed to the task force in the last 
few days and I've missed the announcement.

As I mentioned on the call last week, I am still taking input from my 
constituency and have not had a chance to formulate an opinion on this 
latest draft. I still have very specific concerns as it pertains to 
Registrar liability and will table these along with the rest of the 
comments from my constituency prior to the next conference call.

Lastly, as a small housekeeping note, I did offer my apologies for being 
absent on today's call during our last meeting. I'd appreciate it if the 
minutes could be updated to reflect this.

Thanks in advance,

-rwr

GNSO SECRETARIAT wrote:

> [To dow3tf[at]gnso.icann.org]
> 
> Please find the draft notes following the Whois task force 3 call held on
> Wednesday 3 November 2004.
> If you would like anything changed, please let me know.
> 
> Thank you.
> Kind regards
> 
> Glen
> 
> Glen de Saint Géry
> GNSO Secretariat
> ******************************************************
> WHOIS Task Force 3 Teleconference November 3, 2004 - Minutes
> 
> ATTENDEES:
> GNSO Constituency representatives:
> Intellectual Property Interests Constituency - Brian Darville - Chair:
> Commercial and Business Users constituency - Sarah Deutsch
> gTLD Registries constituency: - Ken Stubbs
> Internet Service Providers and connectivity providers Constituency - Greg
> Ruth
> Government Advisory Committee (GAC) liaison - Suzanne Sene
> 
> GNSO Secretariat: Glen de Saint Géry
> 
> Absent:
> ICANN Staff Manager: Barbara Roseman - absent - apologies
> Registrars Constituency - Ross Rader
> Non Commercial Users constituency - Frannie Wellings
> Intellectual Property Interests Constituency - Kiyoshi Tsuru
> Intellectual Property Interests Constituency - Terry Clark
> At-Large Advisory Committee (ALAC) liaisons: - Vittorio Bertola
> 
> MP3 Recording
> 
> Brain Darville welcomed everyone to the call and asked for views on the
> proposal sent to the mailing list and stated below:
> He explained that the revisions had come about in discussion with
> representatives of the IPC after a telephone conference between Bruce
> Tonkin, Ross Rader, Steve Metalitz (IPC), Ryan Lehning (IPC) and himself.
> 
> I. Steps to Verify & Correct Inaccuracy in Response to a Complaint
> A. 1. If a registrar receives a complaint about the accuracy of registrant
> data through the Whois Data Problems Reporting System, 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
> 4) postal mail.
> 
> 2. If one method fails (e.g., email bounce-back; telephone or fax

> disconnected; or a return to sender message), the domain name may be placed
> immediately on hold;
> or, another method shall be used.
> 
> If both of the two pursued methods fail, registrar shall place the domain
> name on hold. If a pursued method does not fail, registrar must allow the
> registrant 15 days to respond with accurate information. If it is apparent
> at any point in the process that a registrant has willfully provided
> inaccurate contact data, a registrar may immediately place the domain name
> on hold without first attempting to (further) contact the registrant.
> 
> B. If a registrant responds to registrar notifications of inaccuracy within
> the 15 day time limit, providing updated data, registrar shall verify the
> accuracy of at least one 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 may place the domain name on
> hold.
> If one element is accurate, registrar shall verify the second element.
> If both elements remain inaccurate, registrar may place the domain name on
> hold or verify the third element.
> If the contact information remains inaccurate or unverified, the registrar
> shall place the domain name on hold.
> 
> C. Registrars shall make their customers aware of the Whois Data Problems
> Reporting System as the means for bringing complaints with respect to Whois
> data. [Language to be proposed by Ross Rader for publicizing the WDPRS in
> advance of its use as the sole avenue for making complaints about Whois
> data].
> 
> Ken Stubbs commented that the Registry constituency reviewed the last 2
> copies and commented on:
> 1. The time period of 15 days in I a.
> "registrar must allow the registrant 15 days"
> The registry constituency all commented on the impracticality of the 15 days
> rule .
> 2. A very clear distinction should be made as to who has the responsibility
> or who communicates of with registrant. It is the Registrars responsibility
> to communicate with registrants in 1 a and 1 b.
> 
> Sarah Deutsch was waiting feed back from the Business constituency but had
> flagged the time period of 15 days.
> Greg Ruth was happy with the proposed draft and felt that 15 or 30 days was
> not important probably 30 was more realistic but saw Ken Stubb's point of 30
> days.
> 
> Ken Stubbs reported that the draft had been fully vetted by the Registry
> constituency representatives and that all the comments had been made. The
> biggest push back on the 15 days issue was from registry constituency
> members who have a significant presence outside the United States.
> Brian Darville commented that Ross Rader felt the burden in Section C
> "C. Registrars shall make their customers aware of the Whois Data Problems
> Reporting System as the means for bringing complaints with respect to Whois
> data. "
> should be placed both on the Registries and the Registrars.
> 
> He explained that the issue turned on the manner in which registrars
> received complaints about inaccurate Whois data. The Registrars wanted all
> complaints to come through the WDPRS system. The Intellectual Property
> constituency's (IPC) view was that would be fine if the WDPRS were better
> established and better known but the IPC concern was that they wanted to
> make sure a complaint would get into the system. One idea would be to better
> promote the WDPRS by including some kind of other access to that system
> directly in Whois output.
> 
> Ken Stubbs commented on section C, that there was an obligation on the part
> of registrars to send out on an annual basis a reminder to each registrant
> reminding them that it was their responsibility to keep their Whois data
> accurate. Seeing that a significant number of people who filed complaints to
> date were domain name holders and involved in management of domain names it
> might be an idea to remind people of the WDPRS at the same time, so getting
> the message out to a broader community.
> Brian Darville suggested that language to incorporate the idea should be
> drafted and circulated to the list before the next call.
> Brian Darville would discuss the 15 day issue with the IPC.
> Ken Stubbs suggested that Bruce Tonkin could possibly be asked to draft the
> language as he felt that it should come through the registrars constituency
> 
> 
> Next Steps:
> Brian Darville would revise the previous draft
> Bruce Tonkin and Ross Rader could be requested to draft language for section
> C
> 
> 
> 
> Brian Darville thanked everyone for their presence and participation and
> ended the call at noon 11:00 EST, 16:00 UTC. 17:00 CET
> 
> Next call: Wednesday 10 November 2004, 7:30 Los Angeles, 10:30 EST, 15:30
> UTC, 16:30 CET.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> *WHOIS Task Force 3 Teleconference November 3, 2004 - Minutes*
> 
> *ATTENDEES:
> *
> 
> *GNSO Constituency representatives:
> * Intellectual Property Interests Constituency - Brian Darville - Chair:
> Commercial and Business Users constituency - Sarah Deutsch
> gTLD Registries constituency: - Ken Stubbs
> Internet Service Providers and connectivity providers Constituency - Greg Ruth
> Government Advisory Committee (GAC) liaison - Suzanne Sene
> 
> *GNSO Secretariat:* Glen de Saint Géry
> 
> *Absent: *
> *ICANN Staff Manager*: Barbara Roseman - absent - apologies
> Registrars Constituency - Ross Rader
> Non Commercial Users constituency - Frannie Wellings
> Intellectual Property Interests Constituency - Kiyoshi Tsuru
> Intellectual Property Interests Constituency - Terry Clark 
> <http://gnso-audio.icann.org/WHOIS-20040929-tf3.mp3>
> At-Large Advisory Committee (ALAC) liaisons: - Vittorio Bertola
> 
> MP3 Recording <http://gnso-audio.icann.org/WHOIS-20041103-tf3.mp3>
> 
> *Brain Darville* welcomed everyone to the call and asked for views on the 
> proposal sent to the mailing list 
> <http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/dow3tf/msg00300.html> and stated 
> below:
> He explained that the revisions had come about in discussion with 
> representatives of the IPC after a telephone conference between Bruce Tonkin, 
> Ross Rader, Steve Metalitz (IPC), Ryan Lehning (IPC) and himself.
> 
> I. Steps to Verify & Correct Inaccuracy in Response to a Complaint
> A. 1. If a registrar receives a complaint about the accuracy of registrant data 
> through the Whois Data Problems Reporting System, 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
> 4) postal mail.
> 
> 2. If one method fails (e.g., email bounce-back; telephone or fax disconnected; 
> or a return to sender message), the domain name may be placed immediately on hold;
> or, another method shall be used.
> 
> If both of the two pursued methods fail, registrar shall place the domain name 
> on hold. If a pursued method does not fail, registrar must allow the registrant 
> 15 days to respond with accurate information. If it is apparent at any point in 
> the process that a registrant has willfully provided inaccurate contact data, a 
> registrar may immediately place the domain name on hold without first attempting 
> to (further) contact the registrant.
> 
> B. If a registrant responds to registrar notifications of inaccuracy within the 
> 15 day time limit, providing updated data, registrar shall verify the accuracy 
> of at least one 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 may place the domain name on hold.
> If one element is accurate, registrar shall verify the second element.
> If both elements remain inaccurate, registrar may place the domain name on hold 
> or verify the third element.
> If the contact information remains inaccurate or unverified, the registrar shall 
> place the domain name on hold.
> 
> C. Registrars shall make their customers aware of the Whois Data Problems 
> Reporting System as the means for bringing complaints with respect to Whois 
> data.* [Language to be proposed by Ross Rader for publicizing the WDPRS in 
> advance of its use as the sole avenue for making complaints about Whois data].*
> 
> *Ken Stubbs* commented that the Registry constituency reviewed the last 2 copies 
> and commented on:
> 1. The time period of 15 days in I a.
> "registrar must allow the registrant 15 days"
> The registry constituency all commented on the impracticality of the 15 days rule .
> 2. A very clear distinction should be made as to who has the responsibility or 
> who communicates of with registrant. It is the Registrars responsibility to 
> communicate with registrants in 1 a and 1 b.
> 
> *Sarah Deutsch* was waiting feed back from the Business constituency but had 
> flagged the time period of 15 days.
> *Greg Ruth* was happy with the proposed draft and felt that 15 or 30 days was 
> not important probably 30 was more realistic but saw Ken Stubb's point of 30 days.
> 
> *Ken Stubbs *reported that the draft had been fully vetted by the Registry 
> constituency representatives and that all the comments had been made. The 
> biggest push back on the 15 days issue was from registry constituency members 
> who have a significant presence outside the United States.
> *Brian Darville* commented that Ross Rader felt the burden in Section C
> "C. Registrars shall make their customers aware of the Whois Data Problems 
> Reporting System as the means for bringing complaints with respect to Whois data. "

> should be placed both on the Registries and the Registrars.
> 
> He explained that the issue turned on the manner in which registrars received 
> complaints about inaccurate Whois data. The Registrars wanted all complaints to 
> come through the WDPRS system. The Intellectual Property constituency's (IPC) 
> view was that would be fine if the WDPRS were better established and better 
> known but the IPC concern was that they wanted to make sure a complaint would 
> get into the system. One idea would be to better promote the WDPRS by including 
> some kind of other access to that system directly in Whois output.
> 
> *Ken Stubbs* commented on section C, that there was an obligation on the part of 
> registrars to send out on an annual basis a reminder to each registrant 
> reminding them that it was their responsibility to keep their Whois data 
> accurate. Seeing that a significant number of people who filed complaints to 
> date were domain name holders and involved in management of domain names it 
> might be an idea to remind people of the WDPRS at the same time, so getting the 
> message out to a broader community.
> *Brian Darville* suggested that language to incorporate the idea should be 
> drafted and circulated to the list before the next call.
> *Brian Darville* would discuss the 15 day issue with the IPC.
> *Ken Stubbs* suggested that Bruce Tonkin could possibly be asked to draft the 
> language as he felt that it should come through the registrars constituency
> 
> *Next Steps*:
> Brian Darville would revise the previous draft
> Bruce Tonkin and Ross Rader could be requested to draft language for section C
> 
> * Brian Darville thanked everyone for their presence and participation and ended 
> the call at noon 11:00 EST, 16:00 UTC. 17:00 CET
> 
> * *Next call: Wednesday 10 November 2004, ** 7:30 Los Angeles, 10:30 EST, 15:30 
> UTC, 16:30 CET.
> 
> 
> *
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 


-- 





                       -rwr



Contact info: http://www.blogware.com/profiles/ross 
Skydasher: A great way to start your day
My weblog: http://www.byte.org