<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
[nc-whois] Final draft posted.
<http://does-not-exist.net/final-report/final-report-LASTDRAFT.html>.
Please make any comments by 13:00 GMT tomorrow. For your
convenience, I'm attaching a text-only version of the draft with
"change bars" which identify the changes against the previous
version.
(Apologies for not providing "real" change tracking, but that
doesn't work too well on HTML files...)
--
Thomas Roessler <roessler@does-not-exist.org>
Final Report of the GNSO Council's
WHOIS Task Force
Accuracy and Bulk Access
| 6 February 2003
______________________________________________________________________
| Click here to comment on this report.
| Click here to read archived comments.
| Comments on this report can be submitted until 17 February 2003.
| ______________________________________________________________________
Table of Contents
Final Report of the WHOIS Task Force on Accuracy and Bulk Access
Introduction
| 1. Consensus Policies
| 2. Recommendations to ICANN and Registrars: Accuracy of WHOIS Data
| and Review.
| 3. Discussion of the Implementation Committee's Report
| 4. Comments Received in Response to the Policy Report
| 5. Other Input
Attachments
Policy Report of the Names Council's WHOIS Task Force
(published by the Task Force on 30 November 2002)
Report of the GNSO Council's WHOIS Implementation Committee
(published by the Implementation Committee on 31 January 2003)
______________________________________________________________________
Introduction
The WHOIS Task Force has presented several reports which have
contributed to the understanding of uses of WHOIS. In December, 2002,
the Task Force published its Policy Report, providing suggested
policy changes and enhancements in ICANN's enforcement of existing
obligations in two areas: Accuracy and Bulk Access. Further work was
recommended on both of these areas, and on searchability and
consistency of data elements across all TLDs. That report was
discussed by the DNSO's Names Council, and reopened for further
comment by constituencies and the Internet community.
The present report is the result of the WHOIS Task Force's further
outreach, and presents policy recommendations and recommended changes
in ICANN enforcement on the topics of WHOIS Data Accuracy and Bulk
Access.
The other issues discussed by the Task Force will be presented in
separate "issues reports" that will form the basis for further
policy-development -- either by the present WHOIS Task Force, or by a
different appropriate body appointed by the Council. The Issues
Reports will be published for discussion at the ICANN meetings in
Rio de Janeiro.
The recommendations in the present report are based on those made in
the Task Force's Policy Report, on the comments received in
response to that report (see chapter 3), and on the work of the
| GNSO Council's WHOIS Implementation Committee.
For the most part, the detailed discussion of the individual
recommendations can be found in the Policy Report, and is not repeated
in this report. The present document gives detailed discussions only
in those areas in which the Task Force has changed or amended its
earlier recommendations in response to the comments, and in response
| to the Implementation Committee's recommendations.
Respectfully submitted on behalf of the WHOIS Task Force.
______________________________________________________________________
| I. Consensus Policies
1. Consensus Policies: Accuracy of WHOIS Data.
These two policies match the alternative wording proposed in the
Implementation Committee's report, sections 1 and 2, which was
accepted by the WHOIS Task Force. Additions are marked by underlining.
A. At least annually, a registrar must present to the Registrant the
current WHOIS information, and remind the registrant that provision of
false WHOIS information can be grounds for cancellation of their
domain name registration. Registrants must review their WHOIS data,
and make any corrections.
B. When registrations are deleted on the basis of submission of false
contact data or non-response to registrar inquiries, the redemption
grace period -- once implemented -- should be applied. However, the
redeemed domain name should be placed in registrar hold status until
the registrant has provided updated WHOIS information to the
registrar-of-record.
The Task Force observes that the purpose of this policy is to make
sure that the redemption process cannot be used as a tool to bypass
registrar's contact correction process.
2. Consensus Policies: Bulk Access to WHOIS Data.
There are no substantial changes to to the policies contained in
section 3.2 of the Policy Report. However, the extensive
discussion present in that report has been removed for the purposes of
| this document. Additionally, some technical changes proposed by
| ICANN's General Counsel have been incorporated.
A. Use of bulk access WHOIS data for marketing should not be
| permitted. The Task Force therefore recommends that the obligations
| contained in the relevant provisions of the RAA be modified to
eliminate the use of bulk access WHOIS data for marketing purposes.
| The obligation currently expressed in section 3.3.6.3 of the RAA
| could, for instance, be changed to read as follows (changed language
underlined):
"Registrar's access agreement shall require the third party to agree
not to use the data to allow, enable, or otherwise support any
marketing activities, regardless of the medium used. Such media
include but are not limited to e-mail, telephone, facsimile, postal
mail, sms, and wireless alerts."
| The bulk-access provision contained in 3.3.6.6 of the RAA would
| then become inapplicable.
B. Section 3.3.6.5 of the Registrar Accreditation Agreement
currently describes an optional clause of registrars' bulk access
agreements, which disallows further resale or redistribution of bulk
| WHOIS data by data users. The use of this clause shall be made
| mandatory.
| ______________________________________________________________________
|
|II. Recommendations to ICANN and Registrars: Accuracy of WHOIS Data and Review.
|
|1. Enforcement of existing contractual obligations (in the Registrar
Accreditation Agreement) regarding accuracy of WHOIS data
| The recommendations below are based on chapter 3.1.I of the Policy
| Report.
A. ICANN should work with all relevant parties to create a uniform,
predictable, and verifiable mechanism for the enforcement of the
WHOIS-related provisions of the present agreements.
1. Adequate ICANN resources should be devoted to enforcement of the
Whois-related provisions of these agreements.
2. ICANN should ask registrars to identify, by a date certain, a
reliable contact point to receive and act upon reports of false
WHOIS data. ICANN should encourage registrars to (i) provide
training for these contact points in the handling of such reports,
and (ii) require re-sellers of registration services to identify
and train similar contacts.
| 3. ICANN should continue to maintain a standardized complaint
| form on this issue in the internic.net site. Registrars,
registries and re-sellers should be encouraged to provide a link
to this site. In order to better ensure follow up, the complaint
form should supply a "ticket number" for the complaint and should
be designed so ICANN receives a copy of the registrars' response
to the complaint (i.e., the form should incorporate a simple,
automated mechanism for the registrar to report back to ICANN on
the outcome of complaints).
B. The following process should be employed in handling accuracy
complaints:
1. Upon receiving a complaint about WHOIS accuracy, a registrar may
seek evidence or justification from the complainant.
| 2. If the complaint appears justified, then a registrar should at a
minimum send an email to all contact points available in the WHOIS
(including registrant, admin, technical, and billing contacts) for
that domain name with:
+ a copy of the current disputed WHOIS information and
requesting the WHOIS contact information be updated if the
information is incorrect, and
+ a reminder that if the registrant provides false WHOIS
information that this can be grounds for cancellation of
their domain name registration.
| 3. When the registrant responds, a registrar should take commercially
reasonable steps (e.g. apply some heuristic automated data
validation techniques (possibly via an automated tool centrally
| provided by ICANN) to check that the new WHOIS information is
plausible. If the data is found to be not plausible, the
| registrant should be required to provide further justification
(which may be documentary evidence) before the data will be
accepted.
| 4. If no response is received or no data acceptable in step 3 above
has been provided after a time limit (to be agreed) a registrar
| should place a name in REGISTRAR-HOLD (or equivalent) status,
until the registrant has updated the WHOIS information.
5. For a name to be removed from REGISTRAR-HOLD status to active
| status, the registrant should be required to contact the registrar
with updated WHOIS information (as per (3) above), and the
| registrar should confirm that the registrant is contactable via
| this new information.
|
| By following the procedures recommended above, registrars can improve
| the accuracy of contact details in Whois. These procedures do not
| address all situations that may arise requiring registrar action to
| address inaccurate or unreliable Whois data, and are not intended to
| replace registrars' obligations in their accreditation agreements to
| investigate and correct inaccuracies.
|
| (This recommendation is based on part 3 of the WHOIS Implementation
| Committee's work.)
| C. Input received both from the Implementation Committee and in public
comments indicates a strong desire in parts of the community to extend
the 15 day period currently specified in section 3.7.7.2 of the RAA.
The concerns expressed were based on the interpretation that the 15
day period was mandatory.
Communication received from ICANN's General Counsel indicates that
the "current contractual structure of requiring the registrar to
retain the right to cancel if the customer fails to respond in 15
days, but not requiring the registrar to exercise this right is
intended to give the registrar the flexibility to use good judgment to
determine what action should be taken upon a customer's failure to
respond to an inquiry about a Whois inaccuracy." This interpretation
of the contractual language seems to address the concerns raised.
| Given the flexibility provided, the Task Force is not making a policy
| recommendation on this issue.
D. ICANN should modify and supplement its May 10, 2002 registrar
advisory as follows:
1. ICANN should remind registrars that "willful provision of
inaccurate or unreliable information" is a material breach of the
registration agreement, without regard to any failure to respond
to a registrar inquiry. A functional definition -- based on the
actual usability of contact details -- should be used for
"inaccurate or unreliable".
| 2. ICANN should clearly state to registrars that "accepting
unverified 'corrected' data from a registrant that has already
| deliberately provided incorrect data generally is not [not "may
not be," as the advisory now states] appropriate."
| (Much of the text which was contained in the policy report's
| version of this recommendation has been replaced by
| Recommendation B above.)
|
| E. Additionally, the Task Force recommends:
|
| 1. ICANN should encourage registrars to take steps to remind
| registrants of their obligations to submit and maintain complete
| and accurate contact data at appropriate points, including but not
| limited to the time of renewal of a registration.
| 2. Registrars should also notify their agents that they should
provide such reminders.
3. ICANN should also take steps to include information about this
obligation on its websites at appropriate locations, and consider
other ways to educate registrants on this issue.
4. Registrars should be encouraged to develop, in consultation with
other interested parties, "best practices" concerning the
"reasonable efforts" which should be undertaken to investigate
reported inaccuracies in contact data (RAA Section 3.7.8).
|2. Review Process
(This is a new recommendation, based on the Implementation Committees'
| suggestions and the Task Force's consultation with the General
| Counsel.)
| The WHOIS Task Force recommends that the implementation and adoption
| of the recommendations made in this report be monitored by the ICANN
| staff with appropriate reports to the GNSO Council, consistent with
| the PDP.
______________________________________________________________________
| III. Discussion of the WHOIS Implementation Committee's Report
In considering the task force's Policy Report on Accuracy and Bulk
Access at its meeting on December 14, 2002, the Names Council adopted
a resolution providing in part as follows:
That the Names Council creates an implementation/cost analysis
committee, that would look at the cost of implementing the
recommendations as they are written and as they may change during the
next 30 day period.
That the implementation Cost analysis committee produces a report by
30 January 2003 prior to the Council meeting on February 20 which can
be incorporated into the main report.
The structure of the implementation analysis committee would be
identical to that of the Transfers implementation analysis committee
and would consist of Registries, Registrars and user representation
from the WHOIS task force.
See
http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20021214.NCteleconf-minutes.html
for full text of the resolution.
The committee created by this resolution (hereafter referred to as the
Whois Implementation Committee) subsequently convened and ultimately
adopted a final report which is incorporated into this document by
reference. The following are the comments of the Task Force on the
report of the Whois Implementation Committee.
The Whois Implementation Committee took a narrow approach to its
mission and only offered views on four of the recommendations
contained in the Task Force's Policy Report. In general, it responded
to the recommendations that appeared to it to require action by
registrars or registries, and not to those that were primarily or
initially directed to ICANN staff or others.
1. The Implementation Committee offered its views on the
Recommendation contained Section 3.1 (III)(A) of the Policy
Report:
"Registrants should be required to review and validate all WHOIS data
upon renewal of a registration. The specifics of required validation
remain to be determined by this Task Force or another appropriate
body."
The Implementation Committee concluded that this recommendation was
implementable. It suggested that, in order to improve the feasibility
of implementation, the text of the recommendation be changed to the
following:
"At least annually, a registrar must present to the Registrant the
current WHOIS information, and remind the registrant that provision of
false WHOIS information can be grounds for cancellation of their
domain name registration. Registrants must review their WHOIS data,
and make any corrections."
The Task Force believes that this change to its earlier recommendation
should be ACCEPTED. It is certainly consistent with the intent of the
recommendation contained in the Policy Report and provides registrars
with clearer direction about the actions they should take. This
recommendation is based on the input of the Implementation Committee
whch included several registrars.
2. The Implementation Committee offered its views on
Recommendation 3.1 (III) (B) of the Policy Report:
When registrations are deleted on the basis of submission of false
contact data or non-response to registrar inquiries, the redemption
grace period -- once implemented -- should be applied. However, the
redeemed domain name should not be included in the zone file until
accurate and verified contact information is available. The details of
this procedure are under investigation in the Names Council's
deletes task force.
The Implementation Committee deemed this recommendation to be
implementable. It suggested that, in order to improve the feasibility
of implementation, the text of the recommendation be changed to the
following:
When registrations are deleted on the basis of submission of false
contact data or non-response to registrar inquiries, the redemption
grace period -- once implemented -- should be applied. However, the
redeemed domain name should be placed in Registrar Hold status until
the registrant has provided updated and accurate WHOIS information to
the registrar-of-record.
The Task Force can accept this change to its earlier recommendation
subject to the concern stated in the Task Force Final Report that this
implementation (which drops the words "accurate and verified") must
not allow the redemption process to be used as a tool to bypass the
registrar's contact correction process. This is particularly important
with respect to registrations in this category, which have already
been ordered deleted due to provision of inaccurate contact data or
failure to respond to a query. Overall, this implementation is
consistent with the intent of the recommendation in the Policy Report
and more clearly specifies what has to happen before a redeemed domain
name is placed back in the zone file once it has been removed from
there.
3. The Implementation Committee offered its views on part of
Recommendation 3.1 (I)(B)(2) of the Policy Report:
ICANN should clearly state to registrars that "accepting unverified
'corrected' data from a registrant that has already deliberately
provided incorrect data is not [not "may not be," as the advisory now
states] appropriate." Accordingly, where registrars send inquiries to
registrants in this situation, they should require not only that
registrants respond to inquiries within 15 days but that the response
be accompanied by documentary proof of the accuracy of the "corrected"
data submitted, and that a response lacking such documentation may be
treated as a failure to respond. The specifics of acceptable
documentation in this situation should be the subject of further
discussions.
The Implementation Committee did not offer any views on the first
sentence of this recommendation, presumably because it was directed to
ICANN, not to registrars directly. It did, however, comment on the
remainder of the recommendation, apparently treating it as directed to
registrars. It concluded that this part of the recommendation was "NOT
implementable in its current form." However, it did suggest
replacement text,which is presented as "implementable".. The suggested
replacement text is as follows:
"(a) Upon receiving a complaint about WHOIS accuracy, a registrar may
seek evidence or justification from the complainant.
(b) If the complaint appears justified, then a registrar must at a
minimum send an email to all contact points available in the WHOIS
(including registrant, admin, technical and billing) for that domain
name with:
* a copy of the current disputed WHOIS information and requesting
the WHOIS contact information be updated if the information is
incorrect, and.
* a reminder that if the registrant provides false WHOIS information
that this can be grounds for cancellation of their domain name
registration.
(c) When the registrant responds, a registrar must take commercially
reasonable steps (e.g apply some heuristic automated data validation
techniques (possibly via an automated tool centrally provided by
ICANN)) to check that the new WHOIS information is plausible. If the
data is found to be not plausible, the registrant must provide further
justification (which may be documentary evidence) before the data will
be accepted.
(d) If no response is received or no acceptable data has been provided
after a time limit (to be agreed) a Registrar must place a name in
REGISTRAR-HOLD (or equivalent) status, until the registrant has
updated the WHOIS information.
(e) 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 (c) above), and the registrar must confirm that
the registrant is contactable via this new information (for example by
requiring that the registrant respond to an email sent to a new email
contact address)."
The Task Force believes that this change to its earlier recommendation
should be ACCEPTED in large part. Specifically:
Paragraph (a) should be ACCEPTED. The Task Force notes that the
uniform complaint form which it recommends continue to be provided by
ICANN (see Recommendation 3.1 (I)(A)(4)) should include a field in
which the complainant is asked to provide a brief justification for or
evidence in support of the complaint. This would make it unnecessary
in many cases for registrars to exercise the option to "seek evidence
or justification from the complainant." (The Task Force interprets the
word "justification" to mean "reasons why the complainant believes the
Whois data is inaccurate," and use it in that way.)
Paragraph (b) should be ACCEPTED. The Task Force notes that it has
recommended that "registrars should be encouraged to develop, in
consultation with other interested parties, "best practices"
concerning the "reasonable efforts" which should be undertaken to
investigate reported inaccuracies in contact data (RAA Section
3.7.8)." The "minimum" suggested by the Implementation Committee could
be supplemented by these best practices.
Paragraph (c) should be ACCEPTED. The use of an `automated tool
centrally provided by ICANN" should be optional if another
commercially reasonable validation technique is available. The
responsibility of the registrar is to take commercially reasonable
steps to check the plausibility of "corrected" data submitted by a
registrant, which could be use of an automated data validation
technique. If the submitted data fails this test, then a further
inquiry should be made, and some degree of human evaluation of the
acceptability of the re-submitted data must be made to determine
whether acceptance of the data is warranted. This human evaluation
requirement is appropriate because in this instance, the initial
complaint was deemed justified and the initially submitted data failed
the plausibility test.
Paragraph (d) should be ACCEPTED. ,The time limit in the case of
second requests (after implausible data has been submitted the first
time) should be quite brief since the registrar has already
established contact with the registrant.
| Paragraph (e) should BE ACCEPTED WITH A MODIFICATION, by deleting the
| parenthetical. This item only comes into play after the registration
has been placed in "registrar hold" due to failure to provide accurate
contact data, so there is already reason to question the veracity of
the registrant. For the registration to be restored to the zone file,
the registrant should need to do more than to send in "plausible" data
(which passes what could be a minimal automated test) and to get a
disposable email account to which he responds to one e-mail from the
registrar. Some greater assurance of the accuracy of all the contact
| details (and thus of compliance with the registrant's obligation under
| the RAA) should be established at this point, before restoration to
| the zone file. Confirmation of the accuracy of all newly provided
| contact points is not necessarily required to fulfill this step,
| although that ordinarily would be the best practice.
4. The Implementation Committee provided its views on
Recommendation 3.2 (II)(1) of the Policy Report:
There is consensus that use of bulk access WHOIS data for marketing
should not be permitted. The Task Force therefore recommends that
the relevant provisions of the RAA be modified or deleted to eliminate
the use of bulk access WHOIS data for marketing purposes.
The Implementation Committee construed this as a recommendation that
"registrars modify their bulk WHOIS access agreements to eliminate the
use of data for marketing purposes." In fact, the Task Force's
recommendation is that registrars be REQUIRED to make this change in
their bulk access agreements. The Implementation Committee did not
recommend any changes to the revisions to the RAA in this regard that
were suggested by the Task Force in its Policy Report.
The Implementation Committee concluded that "there is a need to
clarify the definition of "marketing purposes". This may require a
small working group to define, possibly just in the form of examples
(but not limited to) of marketing activities covered." The Task Force
agrees with this observation.
The Task Force withholds comment on other aspects of the
Implementation Committee's report that do not go directly to
implementation of the Task Force's recommendations.
______________________________________________________________________
| IV. Comments received in Response to the Policy Report
The Policy Report was open for comments between December 1 until
December 8, 2002. Following ICANN's Amsterdam meetings and the Names
Council conference held at these meetings, there was another
opportunity for public comment from December 23, 2002, until January
10, 2003. The present section summarizes the comments received during
these time periods.
I. Overview of all comments
2002 Dec 01
[comments-whois] WHOIS task force comments George Kirikos
2002 Dec 02
[comments-whois] Comments on Accuracy and Bulk Access Report
Alexander Svensson
2002 Dec 04
[comments-whois] Whois and Transfer Task Force Reports Neuman,
Jeff
2002 Dec 05
[comments-whois] RE: WHOIS and Transfer Task Force Reports
Cade,Marilyn S - LGA
[comments-whois] Comments on November 30, 2002 report Bill Weinman
[comments-whois] comments on whois-report (mostly rejections)
Siegfried Langenbach
[comments-whois] WHOIS policy report comments der Mouse
[comments-whois] Accuracy and Marketing use of WHOIS data Stephen
A. Mattin
[comments-whois] RE: WHOIS and Transfer Task Force Reports
Cade,Marilyn S - LGA
2002 Dec 06
[comments-whois] WhoIs William C (Bill) Jones
2002 Dec 08
[comments-whois] potential for abuse of the WHOIS complaints
procedure Joop Teernstra
2002 Dec 09
[comments-whois] Real lives at risk; personal privacy needs
immediate attention KathrynKL
2002 Dec 23
[comments-whois] Reopening of Whois comments list. DNSO
Secretariat
2002 Dec 30
[comments-whois] Comments Vittorio Bertola
2003 Jan 03
[comments-whois] WHOIS report comments Robert Baskerville
2003 Jan 07
[comments-whois] WHOIS accuracy, and name deletions George Kirikos
2003 Jan 08
[comments-whois] Current System Not Working John Berryhill
[comments-whois] No Subject RBHauptman
[comments-whois] Missing archives sent to Missing posts to
comments-whois@dnso.org for WHois Taskforce from Oct.. Jeff Williams
[comments-whois] Bulk Whois and abuse of Public Whois Elana
Broitman
[comments-whois] Comment on 15 Day Response Requirement Bret
Fausett
[comments-whois] Privacy concerns DannyYounger
2003 Jan 09
[comments-whois] Privacy issues with the WHOIS database Barbara
Simons
[comments-whois] make bulk whois available for research and
archival Aaron Swartz
[comments-whois] Comment on draft Karl Auerbach
[comments-whois] changes to WhoIs database Stanley Krute
2003 Jan 10
[comments-whois] WhoIs Task force comments Tews, Shane
[comments-whois] re: make bulk whois available for research and
archival Ray Fassett
II. Summary of relevant comments
http://www.dnso.org/dnso/dnsocomments/comments-whois/Arc02/msg00001.htm
l
George Kirikos is concerned about the 15 day time period "as it might
not allow sufficient time to investigate the alleged inaccuracies."
Mr. Kirikos points to holidays, illness, and other letgitimate reasons
why a domain name holder may not be able to respond to an accuracy
inquiry in a timely manner. He suggests that there should be multiple
attempts to contact a registrant. Also, Mr. Kirikos proposes to put
domain names on hold for "at least a few months" before they are
deleted due to inaccuracy of contact information. Verification
processes could be outsourced.
As an additional means to mitigate the problems he observes, Mr.
Kirikos suggests that registrars should offer registrants an
opportunity to periodically verify the accuracy of their contact data.
Domain names associated with these verified and accurate data would
then be put onto a "white list", and would not be subject to accuracy
inquiries.
http://www.dnso.org/dnso/dnsocomments/comments-whois/Arc02/msg00002.htm
l
Alexander Svensson asks for further clarification of the proposed
"functional definition" of "inaccurate or unreliable contact data",
"e.g. whether a registrant must be reachable through all means of
contact all the time." Mr. Svensson "strongly supports" the dissenting
opinion of the GA representatives concerning the 15 day period, and
argues that the period "should not be the primary means to stop
overtly fraudulent websites, as this is a task which should be left to
law enforcement authorities." He favors an extension of the 15 day
period, and suggests a hold period before the eventual deletion of a
domain name due to accuracy complaints.
Mr. Svensson also points the task force to statistics of postal
delivery failures gathered during the at-large elections 2000.
Mr. Svensson agrees with the recommendation to "eliminate the use of
bulk access WHOIS data for marketing purposes and the consideration of
an enforced restriction of bulk access to a well-defined group of
legitimate users, respecting applicable national laws."
http://www.dnso.org/dnso/dnsocomments/comments-whois/Arc02/msg00003.htm
l
On behalf of the gTLD constituency, Jeff Neumann formally requests
that no action be taken at the Names Council meeting on 14 December
2002, due to a lack of time to "receive adequate and constructive
feedback from the Internet community as a whole."
http://www.dnso.org/dnso/dnsocomments/comments-whois/Arc02/msg00005.htm
l
This comment was submitted by Bill Weinman, the author of a WHOIS
client (BWwhois). Mr. Weinman reports that he had to remove his
telephone number from the public WHOIS directory in order to stop
nightly telephone calls, and demands that there be a "provision for
individuals to keep their personal phone numbers secret."
http://www.dnso.org/dnso/dnsocomments/comments-whois/Arc02/msg00006.htm
This comment was submitted by Siegfried Langenbach. He observes that,
from his experience, most allegations of false data are "false or at
least a kind of attack." His own registrar business insists that
allegations of false data are proven by a return letter which shows
that an address is indeed unusable. According to this comment, "the
standard form at internic is of no use if ICANN people just let the
messages be forwarded to the registrars without having a check." Mr.
Langenbach suggests that domain names with false data be put on hold,
and that their WHOIS reports be marked accordingly. In his conclusion,
Mr. Langenbach demands that "it should be imposed to those starting
the process to prove that the address is wrong, not the other way
around."
Concerning bulk access, Mr. Langenbach points to possible issues with
applicable law outside the US.
http://www.dnso.org/dnso/dnsocomments/comments-whois/Arc02/msg00007.htm
l
These comments were submitted by "a longtime net user" identifying
himself as "der Mouse." The comment criticizes the Task Force's report
(in particular section 3.1.I.A.4) as being web-centric; a
web-based form is not considered an acceptable substitute for a
port-43 server.
It is also suggested that the proposed web form for submitting
accuracy complaints should be replaced by an e-mail address.
A distinction is suggested between "honest mistakes" and outdated data
on the one hand, and "blatantly fraudulent data" on the other hand. No
need for a 15 day delay is seen in cases in which no valid address
information ("n/a") and an invalid telephone number are given. It is
suggested that registrars should be able to "effectively shut down
such domains during any delay period that is present."
The commenter supports the notion that registrant data should only be
available for marketing purposes on an opt-in basis. Recommendation
3.2.II.B.2 (ineligibility for future bulk access upon breach of
license; this is a mid-term work item) is characterized as a "most
rudimentary" provision. The commenter sees no reason why ICANN should
impose any limit on fees for bulk access.
He sees no need for the bulk access agreement provision currently
mandated by RAA 3.6.6.4 (high-volume processes), and suggests that "if
the desire is to prevent interverence with oeprations, the provision
should prohibit interference with operations, regardless of how
caused."
The comment then goes on to address individual arguments made in a
number of comments received by the Task Force in response to the
interim report.
http://www.dnso.org/dnso/dnsocomments/comments-whois/Arc02/msg00008.htm
l
In this comment, Steve A. Mattin reports that his WHOIS contact
information has been "repeatedly screwed up in the past, resulting in
multiple accounts with inaccurate information." He identifies database
maintainers -- "for example NS MAKING UP contact email addresses" --
and registrars as sources for these errors, and criticizes the
practice of assigning new NIC handles fo the same individual as
"multiplying my problems in maintaining accurate info."
While Mr. Nattin is willing to take responsibility for data he enters
into the system, he is unwilling to bear the consequences of errors
made by others. For this reason, he opposes to automatic sanctions.
Mr. Nattin supports the free availability of accurate WHOIS data for
non-bulk users. For bulk access, he suggests that data users should be
charged "commercial rates" like $10 per address. "The income generated
from 'bulk' users should be used to hire 'real people' to help
fix/maintain the accuracy of the data (and therefore, it's marketing
value)," Mr. Nattin concludes.
http://www.dnso.org/dnso/dnsocomments/comments-whois/Arc02/msg00010.htm
l
This comment was submitted by William C Jones, who identifies himself
as the owner of the domain insecurity.org. Mr. Jones writes that he
"submitted the most complete factual information that [he] could get
away with while still trying to protect [his] privacy", while making
sure that he can still be contacted by telephone, e-mail and regular
postal mail. Mr. Jones expresses a strong feeling that the WHOIS
database "MUST be kept public and must be accurate." He quotes
"research" which indicates that "people who provide false or
misleading information for the WHOIS Registry should NOT be allowed to
keep their domains."
http://www.dnso.org/dnso/dnsocomments/comments-whois/Arc02/msg00011.htm
l
Joop Teernstra warns that "15 days without a response is not a
sufficient time period to establish a material breach of a
registration agreement in case of an WHOIS accuracy inquiry." He also
observes that "the accuracy complaint procedure can be abused ... to
harrass bona fide ... registrants", and may even be a tool for
"robbing" a domain name. He suggests a "postal response period" of 30
days, and suggests that at least two warning e-mails should be sent to
the registrant.
http://www.dnso.org/dnso/dnsocomments/comments-whois/Arc02/msg00012.htm
These elaborate comments were submitted by Kathryn A. Kleiman "as an
individual, small business owner, and political speaker." Ms. Kleiman
addresses the following points in great detail:
* "The open issue of personal privacy." Ms. Kleiman argues in favor
of treating different classes of registrants differently, and
points to a number of examples in which publication of WHOIS data
is expected to cause harm to registrants.
* "The need for personal privacy to be more clearly presented and
protected in the next version of this report." Ms. Kleiman argues
that registering domain names through another party may not be
appropriate, since "many who engage in the political and human
rights Internet work do not choose to share their danger with
others."
* "The need for express recognition that some inaccuracies in the
WHOIS data protect privacy without limiting access to the domain
name registrants for legitimate purposes." Ms. Kleiman notes that,
while registrants will provide accurate information for registry
and registrar communications (renewal notices, UDRP proceedigns
etc.), "not every small piece of data in the WHOIS registration
needs to be accurate." She suggests that unlisted telephone
numbers should be able to remain private "without fear of
jeopardizing a well-known human rights website."
Ms. Kleiman also proposes that the Task Force's recommendations on
WHOIS accuracy should be tested in a "clearly commercial gTLD" first,
and that "special issues that apply to individuals and political
organizations in other gTLDs" should be considered later.
http://www.dnso.org/dnso/dnsocomments/comments-whois/Arc02/msg00014.htm
l
This comment was submitted by Vittorio Bertola. He starts by observing
that, while accuracy of data in the WHOIS database may be desirable,
some degree of inaccuracy is unavoidable for a variety of reasons,
including: burdensome procedures for updating data; the use of "minor
or major alterations of contact data" as a tool to avoid spamming and
personal harassment; special risks for political speakers; "the usual
complexity of the world." Mr. Bertola concludes that "automatically
connecting inaccurate data [...] with a fraudulent intent or unlawful
behaviour is not per se acceptable."
Mr. Bertola believes that the 15-day deadline is too short, and
suggests a number of steps registrars and registries should take when
receiving a complaint about the accuracy of contact data associated
with a certain domain name: First, attempts should be made to contact
the registrant by e-mail both to the last known addresses, and to the
domain's postmaster, hostmaster, and webmaster addresses (and
addresses readily available from a website possibly associated to the
domain name). If that fails, there should be several attempts to reach
the registrant by telephone. Finally, the postal service should be
used, allowing 30 calendar days "for the letter to be delivered and
processed."
Mr. Bertola also recommends that ICANN should: establish a
step-by-step contact verification process which should include
attempts to reach the registrant through a variety of communication
channels; foster the creation of simple instruments for registrants to
keep their contact details up to date; introduce measures by which
some or all information about registrants may be withheld from the
public WHOIS system.
Finally, he notes that "the WHOIS service as currently implemented by
most registries is clearly illegal in a number of countries, including
the European Union."
http://www.dnso.org/dnso/dnsocomments/comments-whois/Arc02/msg00015.htm
l
In this comment, Robert Baskerville agrees with the need for accurate
WHJOIS data; however, he believes that the 15 day time limit is too
short. He sees "little purpose" for the continuation of bulk access to
WHOIS data, and identifies it as a disincentive to accurate data. He
points to the European legislation on data protection which covers all
personal information and prohibits export of such data "to anywhere
which does not have similar legislative protection of personal data
without direct consent."
Mr. Baskerville is "happy for the data linking myself to various .uk
domains to be available for standard whois queries", but does not want
it to be available for any bulk purpose outside research.
http://www.dnso.org/dnso/dnsocomments/comments-whois/Arc02/msg00016.htm
l
Mr. Kirikos re-iterates his concern about the 15 day period, and once
again suggests a whitelist mechanism to be implemented by registrars.
He also suggests to establish a "legal contact", "for which legal
notices can be sent, to augment the existing adim/technical/billing
contacts."
http://www.dnso.org/dnso/dnsocomments/comments-whois/Arc02/msg00017.htm
l
In this comment, John Berryhill lists a number of domain names whoise
WHOIS records include the World Trade Center in New York as the
registrant's postal address. He writes: "I reported the fictitious
addresses in the following domain names a couple of months ago, and
Verisign has done nothing. As per the 15 day period to correct
registration data, these people have had plenty of time, and I agree
with the Task Force that their delay is inexcusable."
http://www.dnso.org/dnso/dnsocomments/comments-whois/Arc02/msg00020.htm
l
This comment was submitted by Elana Broitman (register.com). Ms.
Broitman points out that public, query-based WHOIS services are abused
in an equal or worse manner as bulk WHOIS. She gives the DROA taking
of Register.com's and other registrars' WHOIS data as an example, and
notes that the data was not obtained through a bulk WHOIS license. Ms.
Broitman appreciates the "good public policy reasons for publicly
available WHOIS," but believes that "we can find a solution that meets
these legitimate needs while protecting consumers... from public
disclosure that is subject to abuse." Finally, Ms. Broitman notes that
"until we address this gap, there is little use in changing bulk WHOIS
requirements ... as potential bulk WHOIS licensees move to abuse of
public WHOIS."
http://www.dnso.org/dnso/dnsocomments/comments-whois/Arc02/msg00021.htm
l
In this comment, Bret Fausett notes a personal experience with the
15-day response policy in which he received notice from his registrar
that his contact data was inaccurate and must be corrected within 7
(seven) days or run the risk that his domain name would be deleted.
The contact data in question were accurate; the complaint was
fraudulent. Mr. Fausett suggests that ICANN should not accept
anonymous complaints about WHOIS inaccuracies, that the 15-day
deadline should be extended to 30 days, and that "the deletion grace
period should apply to domain names deleted because they allegedly had
inaccurate WHOIS data."
| This comment was subsequently corrected.
http://www.dnso.org/dnso/dnsocomments/comments-whois/Arc02/msg00022.htm
l
Danny Younger supports the earlier recommendation of Michael Palage
that the Task Force be dissolved as it has "failed to properly and
fully address community concerns regarding privacy."
http://www.dnso.org/dnso/dnsocomments/comments-whois/Arc02/msg00023.htm
l
Barbara Simons is concerned that the availability of WHOIS contact
data is a thread to privacy and security, through identity theft which
dcan in turn be used to create false identification for criminals and
terrorists. She supports the comments submitted by Kathy Kleiman on 9
December 2002.
http://www.dnso.org/dnso/dnsocomments/comments-whois/Arc02/msg00024.htm
l
Aaron Swartz notes that the WHOIS database provides invaluable
information for the public, researchers, and archivists. He argues
that the current $ 10,000 bulk access fee "practically ensures that
the data will only be used for marketing purposes." He suggests that
complete electronic copies of the data be made available for purposes
of research and archival at cost, and suggests that 3.3.6.5 should
have an exception for research and archival purposes.
http://www.dnso.org/dnso/dnsocomments/comments-whois/Arc02/msg00025.htm
l
Karl Auerbach feels that the policy report "unfairly characterizes
[his] comments and failed to answer even a single one of [his]
questions." He re-attaches his early comments.
Mr. Auerbach disagrees with the interim report in that it starts from
"an irrebutable presumption, that whois data must be published for the
convenience of intellectual property owners no matter how much social
damage that may cause through destruction of personal privacy."
Mr. Auerbach supports the comments made by Kathryn A. Kleiman.
http://www.dnso.org/dnso/dnsocomments/comments-whois/Arc02/msg00026.htm
l
Stanley Krute of Soda Mountain, Co., recounts his own tracking of an
individual who ran a fraudulent Internet service in his community.
With Google and WHOIS, Mr. Krute was able to trace 3 years of
faudulent activity amounting to several hundred thousand dollars. He
writes: "Without the whois database, my ability to figure out a
timeline of this guy's crimes would've been nearly zilch. whois is a
vital component of the web. It provides a minimal level of
accountability. Without an accurate whois directory, the web will
become a prime location for criminal activities."
Mr. Krute is not sure about bulk access "due to the existence of
spammers." However, he suggests that there should be a web service
(XML-RPC, SOAP) for automated WHOIS queries. He suggests that spammers
may be deterred by "limiting the interface to one query at a time."
http://www.dnso.org/dnso/dnsocomments/comments-whois/Arc02/msg00027.htm
l
This comment was submitted by Shane Tews on behalf of the Network
Solutions Registrar. According to the comments, the Task Force's
report does not yet reflect a thorough vetting of all the issues
related to the future of WHOIS, nor a consensus of the community on
its conclusions. Network Solutions believes that bulk WHOIS access is
one of the causes of the current spam problem as well as a cause of
concern for privacy advocates. It should not be a precondition for
using the domain name system for a user to have to open herself up to
abuse through the misuse of contact data. Network Solutions believes
that suituations like the abuse of contact data are legitimate reasons
for limiting availability of contact information. Until consumer
privacy concerns are adequately addressed, progress in assuring
accurate WHOIS data will be difficult.
http://www.dnso.org/dnso/dnsocomments/comments-whois/Arc02/msg00028.htm
l
In response to Aaron Swartz's earlier comment. Ray Fassett suggests
that "the application of Digital Rights Management technology could
restrict certain uses of the database upon download, notably those
favored by marketing objectives."
_________________________________________________________________
| V. Other Input
| This chapter contains summaries of statements received by the Task
| Force outside the usual comment process. Some of the issues addressed
| in these comments are not covered by the present report, but will be
| the topics of issues reports to be produced by the Task Force in the
| immediate future.
WHOIS Recommendation of the Security and Stability Advisory Committee
The Security and Stability Advisory Committee provided
| recommendations in a December 1, 2002, report to the ICANN board,
| which the Task Force has reviewed. The report acknowledges the
importance of WHOIS data for the security and stability of the
Internet as the administrating and control of Internet resources is
widely distributed. The Committee recommended validation of contact
information for the party responsible for the Internet resource at the
time of registration and on a regular basis thereafter. Non-validated
records must be frozen or held until updated or removed. The committee
supports the development of a standard format for WHOIS. The report
also notes the importance of mechanisms to protect a registrant's
privacy. It also recommends that methods be developed to discourage
harvesting or mining of WHOIS information. The report includes some
interesting recommendations about requiring a "last verified date" for
the WHOIS data. The Committee recommends that registrars, registries
and all interested parties should support and participate in the
activities of the CRISP and PROVREG working groups of the
IETF.
Contribution of the European Commission to the general discusison of the
WHOIS database raised by the Reports produced by the ICANN WHOIS Task Force
The European Commission Internal Market DG provided a three page
| contribution to ICANN in mid January, 2003, which the Task Force has
| reviewed. The contribution provides comments on some of the earlier
reports of the Task Force and welcomes the opportunity to discuss the
issues in more detail. The contribution follows two earlier
communications from the Commission to ICANN, which are referenced.
This communication acknowledges that the survey undertaken by the Task
Force is not a scientific study and that its result are not
| representative of all users. The contribution notes the importance of
recognizing existing legal frameworks' legal requirements and
obligations. It further describes the purpose of the WHOIS database as
traditionally technical and operational in nature. The submission
notes that the Task Force report did not define what uses are
| legitimate and compatible to the original purpose. The importance of
| limiting the amount of personal data to be collected and processed,
| under the European Data Privacy Directive is emphasized. The
| contribution contains supportive comments on the role of Trusted Third
| Parties or similar solutions and on studying "differentiated" access
| to provide WHOIS data but without having all data available to
| everybody. There is support concerning accuracy of data and to
limitation of bulk access, and observes that "bulk access, for any
purpose (not only for direct marketing), is in principle
unacceptable." The Interim Report's proposals concerning uniformity
| and more searchable WHOIS facilities are not supported.
Contribution of the International Working Group on Data Protection in
Telecommunications
The International Working Group on Data Protection in
Telecommunications has provided a comment on the Task Force's
| Interim Report, dated 15 January 2003. The Working Group reaffirms its
common position originally adopted in May 2000. The Working Group
is "especially critical of proposals contained in the Interim Report
... to extend the search capabilities of WHOIS databases to searches
for the registrant name."
______________________________________________________________________
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|