Re: [nc-deletes] Revised report

["John Berryhill Ph.D. J.D." <john@johnberryhill.com>]

These are some brief comments on the draft.  In several places, forms of the
verb "to own" are used in connection with registration of a domain name (i.e.
"own", "ownership", "owner", etc.).  Whether anyone "owns" a domain name is
itself a contentious issue.  Language such as "registrant", "register", and
"registration" is significantly less contentious.

If these comments and suggested revisions are too cryptic, let me know.


--------
"In order to prevent this, the task force recommends that registrars require
that registrants of such names"

--confirm and verify the current WHOIS information or--

"provide new, verified Whois information"

--in such manner as is to be specified in the pending recommendations of the
WHOIS task force.--

"The registrar should then provide a statement"

[to whom?]

"indicating that the data has been verified"

--in accordance with the prevailing requirements--

" in conjunction with the request for the name's redemption."

[Comment: It is one thing for the registrar to say the data has been
"verified" in some absolute sense, and another thing for the registrar to say
that the rules for verification were followed.  The recommendation should be
clear that "verified" is meant in the latter sense, to avoid registrar
liability for fraudulently "verified" data.]


-----------

"There may also be alternative approaches to the reallocation process that
are fairer, less resource-intensive, or both, than the current reallocation
mechanism."

[There is no system of assigning a globally-unique resource to a single party
that is going to be considered "fair" by every other party who is denied the
resource.  Nobody ever proposed "first-come first-served" as "fair" in some
absolute sense, but it has always been considered "less unfair" than
alternatives.  Regardless of what system one develops, there will always be
those who become more skillful than others in using that system.
Re-allocation is not within the scope of this task force, and that is
probably sufficient.  An extended discussion of what is "fair" is generally
unproductive, and the word should be avoided.]

---------

"3.2.5.2 Modify the Whois entry for the domain name to indicate that the name
is the subject to a UDRP dispute, and to remove all specific"

---registration--

"information for the Whois record."

["owner" reference removed]

------

"3.2.5.3 If the complaint is terminated prior to a"

--panel decision--

"being rendered, but after the domain reaches this state, the domain name
will be deleted."

[remove "verdict"]

-------

"3.2.7 In all other cases, the registrar shall comply with the outcome of the
UDRP dispute in accordance with its regular policies.  No provision of this
policy should be taken to override the decision in the UDRP dispute."

[I'm not sure what the last sentence means.  This "policy" requires minor
adjustment to the portion of the RAA incorporating the UDRP]