RE: [nc-whois] RE: [nc-impwhois] Draft WHOIS implementation committee report

[Steve Metalitz <metalitz@iipa.com>]

Here is the text of the Task Force final report regarding the 15-day period
(to which I referred in my earlier post).

   

      There is not a consensus on the Task Force (taking into account
comments received) that 15 days without a response is a sufficient time
period to establish a material breach in all cases. ICANN should work with
registrars, over the next 6 months, to monitor and collect more extensive
data on the specific impact of the 15 days period in RAA 3.7.7.2, and its
actual implementation by registrars, on good faith registrations, in
particular from developing countries, that are subject to accuracy
inquiries.

Dissenting opinion of Abel Wisman and Thomas Roessler (GA): In view of the
postal delivery times outside the USA, the lengthened holidays in some
countries across the world and the general difficulty in contacting people
in certain parts of the world, it would be prudent for ICANN and the
registrars to address leniency towards the 15 day period for cases which are
not overtly fraudulent, while the task force continues its work on its
recommendations regarding the accuracy of the whois data.

-----Original Message-----
From: Steve Metalitz [mailto:metalitz@iipa.com]
Sent: Thursday, January 23, 2003 8:08 AM
To: 'Bruce Tonkin'; nc-impwhois@dnso.org
Cc: 'nc-whois@dnso.org'
Subject: [nc-whois] RE: [nc-impwhois] Draft WHOIS implementation
committee report


Bruce, thank you for pulling together all the input from the last call and
the list.

On a quick read this looks like a useful step forward.  However, with regard
to proposed substitute text on point 3, the issue of 30 days v. 15 days for
a registrant to respond has been debated ad nauseam within the Whois Task
Force over at least the past nine months.  It is the subject of a specific
recommendation in the Task Force final report (that ICANN collect data that
would indicate whether the 15 day time frame in the registrar agreements
should be changed).   It is clear that there is not a consensus in support
of making such a change at this time (although perhaps there could be after
the data collection effort which the Task Force called for).  Accordingly,
this proposal seems to be well outside the scope of what the implementation
committee has been asked to do. 

I will try to provide some more detailed reactions on our call or prior to
it if possible.  

Steve Metalitz 
-----Original Message-----
From: Bruce Tonkin [mailto:Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au] 
Sent: Thursday, January 23, 2003 2:53 AM
To: nc-impwhois@dnso.org
Subject: [nc-impwhois] Draft WHOIS implementation committee report

Hello All,

Attached is a first draft of the WHOIS implementation committee report for
discussion in the teleconference in 12 hours time.  I won't be reading any
email before then, but I encourage discussion of the report via the email
list over the next 12 hours!.

I have tried to incorporate the major issues in the comments/issues column
of table 2, and I have attempted to suggest some alternative wording of the
recommendations to make them implementable - but still remain consistent
with the underlying principle.  These suggestions were derived from some of
the original Melbourne IT suggestions, and modified following feedback in
the last call and on the list.

Regards,
Bruce Tonkin