RE: [nc-whois] Final report: Next iteration posted.

[Steve Metalitz <metalitz@iipa.com>]

On further reflection I think it is important to make a small adjustment in
the revisions proposed by the Whois Implementation Committee.

In item 3(b)(5) (for some reason this is numbered 3, not 5, in Thomas'
latest iteration) I suggest changing the first words in the parenthetical
from "for example by" to "including but not limited to".  This item would
then read:

"For a name to be removed from REGISTRAR-HOLD status to active status, the
registrant must contact the registrar with updated WHOIS information (as per
(3) above), and the registrar must confirm that the registrant is
contactable via this new information (including but not limited to requiring
that the registrant respond to an email sent to a new email contact
address)." 

As mentioned below, this item only comes into play after the registration
has been placed in registrar hold, so there is already reason to question
the veracity of the registrant. I question whether the registration should
be restored to the zone file if the registrant simply sends in "plausible"
data and gets a hotmail account to which he responds to one e-mail from the
registrar.   There should be some greater assurance of the accuracy of all
the contact details.  This wording would leave it up to the registrar to
decide which other contact points would be tested (the best practice would
be to test them all) but would make it clear that it can't be just e-mail.  

I will plan to reflect this in the revised section II of the TF report
(comment on Whois implementation committee report) which I will circulate
later today.  Of course, this is all subject to our discussion on tomorrow's
call.

Steve Metalitz   
-----Original Message-----
From: Steve Metalitz [mailto:metalitz@iipa.com]
Sent: Friday, January 31, 2003 6:19 PM
To: 'Thomas Roessler'; nc-whois@dnso.org
Subject: RE: [nc-whois] Final report: Next iteration posted.


Regarding item 3(b)(3)-(5), in the spirit of cooperation (or is it
exhaustion?), my current thinking is to accept the language proposed by the
Implementation Committee, but to address the following issues in the Part II
Discussion section:

(1)  Second sentence of (3):  this implies that some human evaluation of the
acceptability of the justification is required.  

(2)  We interpret (4) as dealing with no response (or unacceptable response)
to the second inquiry provided for in (3).  The time period certainly should
be brief in this case since the registrar has already made contact with the
registrant in step 2.  

(3)  Since the Registrar Advisory already indicates that "reasonable steps"
to contact the registrant means using all available means, the
"contactability" requirement of point 5 ordinarily means contactability
through all means (mail, phone, fax, e-mail).  Remember that this is for a
registration that has already been placed on registrar hold, meaning there
is already very strong grounds for questioning the accuracy of the data.  

I would be interested in your thoughts about whether these points should be
expressed in the text of the recommendation (by amending what came from the
Implementation Committee) rather than just in our Discussion.  I think this
might be needed, especially as to the last point above, but I am planning to
sleep on it. 

Steve Metalitz

 

-----Original Message-----
From: Thomas Roessler [mailto:roessler-mobile@does-not-exist.net]
Sent: Friday, January 31, 2003 2:20 PM
To: nc-whois@dnso.org
Subject: [nc-whois] Final report: Next iteration posted.


The next iteration of our final report is available at 
<http://does-not-exist.net/final-report/final-report-feb03-030131v2.html>.

I hope I have captured all relevant changes from our conference call
today.  I have also added proposed additional wording on the
redemption grace period policy.  It's not perfect -- improvements
welcome.

Have a nice evening,
-- 
Thomas Roessler				<roessler@does-not-exist.org>