Re: [nc-whois] DRAFT accuracy section: state of play

[Ken Stubbs <kstubbs@digitel.net>]

i believe your comments are probably correct here steve but you point out
that we really dont have a track record and we do need to get
a better handle on what the experience has bee to date..

rather than arbitrarily mandating status quo here, i believe it would be
more appropriate to look closely at whether the 15 days makes sense in the
future
in light of the emphasis which will be place on compliance..

marilyn.. can we take a few minutes to discuss this today ?

regards

ken


> Regarding the 15-day period, there is simply not enough evidence of
problems
> with the provision that has been in place for about three years now. At
this
> point we do not even know how many registrations have ever been cancelled
> for failure to respond within 15 days, much less in how many of these a
> response would have been forthcoming in 30 or 45 days.  Additionally, if
> cancellation is replaced with a "hold" process, in effect registrants will
> have much more than 15 days to reclaim their registrations by submitting
> valid contact data.  I believe the proper course is to monitor
developments,
> as reflected in section 5(c).
>
> Steve Metalitz
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Abel Wisman [mailto:abel@able-towers.com]
> Sent: Monday, November 25, 2002 9:35 AM
> To: 'Ken Stubbs'; 'Steve Metalitz'; nc-whois@dnso.org
> Subject: RE: [nc-whois] DRAFT accuracy section: state of play
>
>
> I can live with 45 days, which is far more reasonable.
>
> As for the deliberate issue, that is for registrars to judge, after all
> they got paid for the domain, so if the data for the ownership is
> differen from the card used for payment we are getting close. I assume
> we have to look into things likethat to give it any definition, if we
> can give it one at all.
>
> Kind regards
>
> Abel
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-nc-whois@dnso.org [mailto:owner-nc-whois@dnso.org] On Behalf
> Of Ken Stubbs
> Sent: 25 November 2002 14:31
> To: Steve Metalitz; nc-whois@dnso.org
> Subject: Re: [nc-whois] DRAFT accuracy section: state of play
>
>
> we still have issues with the 15 day provisions here.. they are not
> practical ...
>
> i am still concerned about how one determines whether inaccurate data
> was "deliberately provided" sure.. everyone uses the example of "mickey
> mouse" or "anytown usa" but how do we apply these standards to other
> languages & locations as well as tel #'s etc..
>
> this needs to be elaborated more clearly
>
> ken stubbs
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Steve Metalitz" <metalitz@iipa.com>
> To: <nc-whois@dnso.org>
> Sent: Friday, November 22, 2002 3:57 PM
> Subject: [nc-whois] DRAFT accuracy section: state of play
>
>
> > With aim of working to finalize language at our Monday teleconference,
> here
> > is the state of play on the accuracy section.  This is essentially the
>
> > mark-up circulated off the public list by Kristy on Tuesday 11/19,
> > incorporating a specific suggestion made by Karen (in the preamble)
> > that
> had
> > not been incorporated by Kristy.    It retains Thomas' yellow markings
> > though no change in text has been suggested on these.  In item 8 it
> includes
> > alternative formulations proposed by Thomas and by me.  I am not
> > asserting that this text has been "agreed to," since I know there are
> > a number of outstanding questions, from Ken and perhaps others, but I
> > think it suummarizes where things stand and is the basic text which we
>
> > should think about over the weekend and try to finalize on our Monday
> > call.  We have diverted a lot of attention (and I think rather
> > successfully) to the bulk access section but I suggest it is time to
> > bring this section to a conclusion as well.
> >
> > Steve Metalitz
> >
> >  <<Domain Names Whois TF nov 22 state of draft on accuracy sjm
> 112202.doc>>
> >
>
>