RE: [ga] WHOIS accuracy, and name deletions

["Cade,Marilyn S - LGA" <mcade@att.com>]

The TF tried to address this issue by suggesting that a further examination of the 15 day policy be undertaken. That remains the intent of the TF.  The TF also took seriously and included comments by two TF members recommeing a lenient implementation of the 15 day policy. Further, the TF received some comments that in situations where actual harm to individuals through fraud, criminal action is occuring that a less than 15 day period may be needed.  The crux of their recommendation was that this issue needed further work, and that work needed to be done in the near term.

The NC recommended, adn the TF reopened the comment list from the time of the Amsterdam meeting until 1/9. I would assume that you submitted your comments to the open list. However, since I've read the list, I know that some concerned and interested individuals failed to take that small, easy to do, but significant step.

IF you missed that step, or overlooked it, or perhaps were just out of reach due to the series of holidays, etc.,  and you still want to submit a short, coherent, and focused comment, or want one of your previous postings elsewhere WHICH IS DIRECTLY RELEVANT to be included, I suggest that you write a short email, asking that, attaching the relevant posting. I will forward to the WHOIS TF.  

I suspect that Thomas is also a resource in providing that forwarding. 

Marilyn Cade



-----Original Message-----
From: Vittorio Bertola [mailto:vb@bertola.eu.org]
Sent: Wednesday, January 08, 2003 6:14 AM
To: Cade,Marilyn S - LGA
Cc: Joop Teernstra; Thomas Roessler; George Kirikos;
discuss-list@opensrs.org; ga@dnso.org
Subject: Re: [ga] WHOIS accuracy, and name deletions


On Tue, 7 Jan 2003 23:28:40 -0500, you wrote:

>Joop, you are responding in a way which indicates that you don't want to have an interaction which can result in exchange between parties of good will. 

Knowing Joop, this might sometimes be true :-) and it's also true that
the 15 days provision is already policy, but nevertheless I think
that, for the same good will, the task force should recognize the
ample concern in the registrant community about enforcing that
timeframe in a hard way.

Note that I'm not talking just about individual registrants - the
company I used to work for had its .co.uk domain name put on hold
without notice because we had no way of checking or updating our
contact data, and they had no way of contacting us because the contact
data were out of date (well, e-mail was ok, but apparently they didn't
bother to use it - they just used the postal address to send the
invoice, and when it bounced, they disconnected the domain). And for
an e-commerce company, even one day of downtime might cause
million-dollar damages. (BTW, if I was a company whose domain is put
on hold due to WHOIS inaccuracies, I wouldn't wait a minute to sue my
registrar.)

More generally speaking, it's just a matter of ICANN choosing where it
wants to stand. If it wants to play the market regulator, it has to
stand half way between all parties. If it chooses positions that bring
advantage to some parties but are unreasonable and unacceptable to
many others, it simply (as it has happened in the past years) will
lose its role and credibility more and more. I think that all of us
who still accept to play a part in ICANN policy-making processes
should keep this concept well in mind.
-- 
vb.            [Vittorio Bertola - v.bertola [a] bertola.eu.org]<---
-------------------> http://bertola.eu.org/ <-----------------------
--
This message was passed to you via the ga@dnso.org list.
Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html