RE: [registrars] current update on whois task force

["Grote, Henning" <Henning.Grote@telekom.de>]

...so do we!

Best regards,
Henning Grote
Deutsche Telekom AG

-----Original Message-----
From: Elliot Noss [mailto:enoss@tucows.com]
Sent: Wednesday, February 05, 2003 2:58 PM
To: Ken Stubbs; Bruce Tonkin; Registrars
Subject: RE: [registrars] current update on whois task force


We support Bruce's position strongly.

Regards

Elliot Noss
Tucows inc.
416-538-5494
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-registrars@dnso.org [mailto:owner-registrars@dnso.org]On Behalf
Of Ken Stubbs
Sent: Wednesday, February 05, 2003 7:32 AM
To: Bruce Tonkin; Registrars
Subject: Re: [registrars] current update on whois task force


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