<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
Re: [registrars] current update on whois task force
Internetters also supports Bruce's viewpoint on this issue.
Paul Westley
Internetters
At 12:32 05/02/03, Ken Stubbs wrote:
thanks for your
comment here bruce..
it would be most helpful if other registrars who support
this position would also let it be known publicly to the
list.
regards
ken
- ----- Original Message -----
- From: Bruce
Tonkin
- To: Ken Stubbs ;
Registrars
- Sent: Wednesday, February 05, 2003 2:47 AM
- Subject: RE: [registrars] current update on whois task
force
- Hello Ken,
-
- I notice that the current draft proposes that in addition to checking
that an email address is correct after a name has been placed in HOLD
status (e.g via sending a confirmation email to the new contact email
address) that a registrar should do further checks (such as attempting to
contact the registrant using other contact points e.g post or fax or
phone etc). This is a further cost on the registrar, and I do not
support it (e.g manual labour cost and cost of postage etc). I
think email should be the minimal check REQUIRED.
-
- If the email address is working, then a complainant has at least one
verified method of communicating with the registrant. The
complainant is free to carry out their own checks of postal address etc,
or alternatively the complainant could pay the registrars costs in doing
further checks. It is not reasonable that a registrar should incur
further costs as a result of failure of a registrant to provide correct
details. Alternatively a registrant may be charged to update
contact details after a name has been placed on HOLD just as they are
charged for retrieving a name in the Redemption Grace Period.
-
- So I recommend that this change to the implementation committees
suggestion not be accepted. It is what I call scope creep. If
it is accepted, then the WHOIS Task Force should be made aware that as a
consequence registrars will need to charge either the registrant or the
complainant for the additional costs. The WHOIS Task Force should
consider whether the burden of costs should lie with the registrant or
the complainant in their suggested procedure.
-
- I note the implementation committee also recommended a review process
for the new WHOIS recommendations and also recommended a 30 day period
for a registrant to respond to a request.
-
- Regards,
- Bruce
-
- -----Original Message-----
- From: Ken Stubbs
[mailto:kstubbs@digitel.net]
- Sent: Wednesday, February 05, 2003 4:26 AM
- To: Registrars
- Subject: [registrars] current update on whois task
force
-
- the whois task force has been concentrating in the last 2 weeks on
accuracy & bulk access issues.
- the current report draft can be seen at:
-
- http://does-not-exist.net/final-report/final-report-feb03-030201v0.html
-
- I would greatly appreciate any comments you may have on the draft
-
- thanks
-
- ken stubbs
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|