Re: [registrars] Draft Registrar Submission to TF3

["Siegfried Langenbach" <svl@xxxxxxx>]

Hallo,

I am a bit surprised about the process ICANN initiated here:

1) the format and the procedure of the WDPRS mails changed
    am I the only one who missed the announcement?

 2) the are still sending duplicates, even if the reporter is the same

 3) a considerable amount of reports where processed at our side 
before ICANN did send the report, because the reporter did send the 
same report to us. It could cause that ICANN will see no change 
because the captured the wrong data.

In general I miss the interaction between ICANN and registrars in that 
task.

siegfried

On 7 Apr 2004 at 17:27, Ross Wm. Rader wrote:

Date sent:      	Wed, 07 Apr 2004 17:27:31 -0400
From:           	"Ross Wm. Rader" <ross@xxxxxxxxxx>
Send reply to:  	ross@xxxxxxxxxx
Organization:   	Tucows Inc.
To:             	Elana Broitman <ebroitman@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Copies to:      	registrars@xxxxxxxx
Subject:        	Re: [registrars] Draft Registrar Submission to TF3

> On 4/7/2004 4:49 PM Elana Broitman noted that:
> 
> > Ross - this is a very useful statement.
> > 
> > I have the following recommendations, stemming primarily from ICANN's March 31st WDRPS report.
> > 
> > 1) In the background section, we should point out that ICANN report reflects well on registrars' compliance with accuracy requirements:
> > 	a) Only 16,045 domain names (out of about 30 million) were the subjects of inaccurate whois reports;
> > 	b) ICANN received only 19 follow up complaints indicating dissatisfaction with registrars' compliance or follow up  - i.e., In over 16 thousand cases, registrars took satisfactory action toward accuracy;
> > 	c) in a large number of cases, inaccuracy was caused by technical or legal reasons (name on hold, server change, etc.) - i.e., this will continue to happen regardless of any new verification requirements.
> > 
> > 2) Another important point to glean from this report is that 40% of all reports were made by just 20 individuals (0.3% of all reporters), suggesting that we have a few watchdogs paying attention probably for business reasons, but that this is not a broadly shared concern.  This is not to say that it is not a legitimate interest, but just that we should measure the cost of any new compliance requirements against the size of the group that really focuses on this. 
> > 
> > 3) In terms of suggestions, I would also:
> > 	a) ask that the TF identify how and why current safeguards and requirements have not worked. For example, the data problem reporting system or the accuracy announcements - where have they fallen short?  Otherwise, we will continue to suggest new mechanisms without knowing what specific problem we are addressing.
> > 	b) do you think there is a value to also looking at ccTLD accuracy requirements?
> 
> I will be preparing a revised statement that takes newer material into 
> account when I get a chance later this week. If you are interested in 
> reading up on the general direction of the task force, a preliminary 
> version of an early version of the interim report was published for 
> internal task force use this morning. We are not circulating it any 
> wider than the TF until we finish it, but it is available on the 
> public mailing list nonetheless - here: 
> http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/dow3tf/msg00136.html
> 
> -- 
> 
> 
>                         -rwr
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>                  "Don't be too timid and squeamish about your actions.
>                                             All life is an experiment.
>                              The more experiments you make the better."
> 						- Ralph Waldo Emerson
> 
> Got Blog? http://www.blogware.com
> My Blogware: http://www.byte.org