RE: [registrars] current update on whois task force

[Michael Brody <mbrody@tldsystems.com>]

AtcomTechnology Supports Bruce's position on this issue.

Michael Brody
AtcomTechnology


On Wed, 5 Feb 2003, Donna McGehee wrote:

> BulkRegister supports Bruce's position on this issue.
> 
> Donna McGehee
> BulkRegister
> 
>   -----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
>