ICANN/GNSO GNSO Email List Archives


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

PeaceNet Korea's Comments on Whois TF3 Preliminary Report

  • To: whois-tf3-report-comments@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Subject: PeaceNet Korea's Comments on Whois TF3 Preliminary Report
  • From: Chun Eung Hwi <chun@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Mon, 5 Jul 2004 19:48:33 +0900 (KST)

The TF3 preliminary report confirms by itself that their proposed best 
practice is based on very poor survey results. Moreover, the vote results 
for each item of the proposed best practice appears to be extremely split 
into two non-negotiable factions among stakeholders. This shows up that 
the present proposal of the TF3 is too immature as well as contradictory 
to the spirit of consensus building. Rather, Registrar constituency's 
alternative proposal seems to be more attempting to harmonize the extreme 
positions and suggest more practically reasonable recommendations. And the 
fact that the task of TF3 is largely demanding Registrar's burden to meet 
the contractual obligation under the RAA needs to be fully taken into 
account. Therefore, we make some comments on Registrar's alternative 
recommendations, which seems to be the only one possible basis for 
consensus policy, as follows;

The accuracy, if it is to be necessarily required as in RAA, is needed for
"facilitating timely resolution of any problems that arise in connection
with the Registered Name." (RAA That is to say, this accuracy is
needed at the event when some technical problem occurs in naming function
of the registered name. It means that this accuracy is a safeguard for
domain name licensee to get warranty of more stable and reliable naming
service rather than to fulfill all other purposes which are not specified
in registration process and go beyond the scope of ICANN's mission - the
technical coordination of addressing schemes. Therefore, this requirement
is to be an option for registrant and to be a mandatory obligation for
registrars so as to conduct this technical function more effectively.

Based on this thinking, the use of WDPRS for the purpose of enhancing 
whois data accuracy makes sense. We can accept the idea of WDPRS as the 
useful mechanism for data accuracy, but legitimate complaints in WDPRS 
should be limited to those things which have some relations with technical 
function of naming system. Regardless of its willingness of registrants, 
providing the inaccurate whois data could be detrimental to the 
registrants' interests because the problematic naming situation including 
reaching the expiring valid date could not be appropriately notified to 

Therefore, the inaccurate whois data could not be a cause to be punished
because in the event of some technical problems, those registrants could
be directly damaged. Why should they be penalized even when they should
inevitably suffer from the disadvantageous situation due to the inaccurate
whois data? Of course, we should take into account the other aspect that
inaccurate whois data could be a negative factor to maintain more stable
and reliable naming system, so finally lead to be detrimental even to
other users. So, if WDPRS report some legitimate complaints to Registrars
and if whois data cannot be validated, such measures to freeze or to hold
those names until those names in question are to be verified, we agree,
could be taken. But in any event, the cancellation of the registered names
should not be allowed. We should recognize that more and more the use of
domain is closely related with some interests and to freeze or to hold its
use is enough to rectify the situation in question. The inaccuracy of
whois data cannot be the full complete condition for the cancellation
although we recognize it could be simply one "basis of cancellation" (RAA

Registrars should be allowed to charge for the correction service of
inaccurate whois data to those complainants in order to discourage
frivolous complaints through WDPRS. However, to impose some fee to
registrants seems to be inappropriate because the corrected contact
information of registrants would be potentially beneficial even to those
Registrars given the expected re-registration promotion.

Additionally, we emphasize the importance of accomodating multi-lingual
registration environment for getting more accurate whois data. To register
whois data only in English and the registration information including
terms of references which is given only in English in registration process
would give enough incentive for non-English speaking registrants to
provide inaccurate whois data. Furthermore, those non-English registrants
should also suffer disadvantageous conditions even in all other
notifications including confirming the expiring valid date. In this
respect, Alan Cox's proposal that the entire registrar system has to be
unicode aware would be welcomed to all non-English speaking users.

Chun Eung Hwi
General Secretary, PeaceNet | phone:     (+82)  2-2166-2205
Seoul Yangchun P.O.Box 81   |   pcs:     (+82) 019-259-2667
Seoul, 158-600, Korea       | eMail:   chun@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx

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