WHOIS Task Force Teleconference on 9 September 2002
Marilyn Cade - co-chair
Antonio Harris - co-chair
Berny Turcotte from .ca invited by Tim Denton.
Berny Turcotte, on invitation from Marilyn Cade spoke about the .ca approach to WHOIS to the accuracy of data and the other task force recmmendations.
From the begining they tried to avoid the known problems.
- Validity of information
Being a low volume registry 10 to 15 thousand a month, 3 to 6 hundred a day, every registration per day is eyeballed and approximately 20% of the regiatrations are flagged.
This takes about an hour per day.
The reasons for this are that .ca is only for Canadians and Canadian companies thus registrations must fit into eligibility boxes. Of the amount flagged 85% have a valid complaint and it gets fixed. When registrars realise that there is checking on the data validity they are careful about sending accurate data.
More data is asked for than in the standard format. Formally all registered trade marks must be Canadian.
There is a 30 day period to drop a name after it has been registered if need be and all names lookeded at have been accepted. Registrations are passed through checks and parameters have been set so there is a fairly automatic checking that is being developed by .ca. Valid phone number is one of the checks. This system was started in December 2000 and the checking started in March 2001 and a daily manual process developed into a automatic check. 4th, 3rd, and 2nd levels domains are handled, 3005, about 4 to 5 hundred a day. Check name of registrant, need a real person, list of theings that not acceted, DNS manager not accepted.
Canada passed a very stringent Federal Privacy legislation which is being studied at the moment and the only people who have gone round the ability or the right to preserve information is the telecoms. The supplier has the responsibility to keep the data confidential. With the public WHOIS there is a restriction on information.
Data mining is occuring, and there is resistance to giving valid contact because of spamming.
Registrant's categories, about 50% corporations separate from public entities, 30 to 40 % Canadian citizens personal and the rest fall into about 14 other categories.
Nexus requirements are are not limited
to a Canadian address, as a Canadian citizen, where ever he is situated in the
world can register and there is not an automatic flag on a country.
Scanning registrations is not a problem and thousands of registrations per day would not be a problem. The process shows up which registrars are causing the problem which is an interesting tool.
Notification is still a manual process, but in process of developing an automatic tracking system whcih Registrars and registry will have access to. It takes 2 to 7 days to fix the problem that has been fagged.
With the pricing model that there is at the moment, the costs fit in well, costs are low, complete package tracking to resolution is low end support body and this is being done manually and the automated system will cost even less.
Under the new law the registrant name can be displayed but not phone number and address without explicit permission.
.CA at the end of last year 2001, ranked 15th out of 245 ccTLDs and this year 2002, 13th.
Standards are difficult to apply
to those ccTLDs that are run on a small scale, but the top 20% find it no problem
and like standards. Extensions should be possible, so the nexus category would
be able to fit in. The base elements arrived by the community and optional elements
should be acceptable.
Universal searchabily reqiurements
may cause a problem.
Berny is not familiar with IETF work and has not heard of any in the ccTLD community.
Universal searchability: What changes should be brought about and what is the benfit?
The biggest concern is the domain name itself, the new name coming up is of interest. The objective can be attained by making access available to the domain names in a timely and ordered way. Under present legislation information may be provided for specific purpses.
Karen Elizaga spoke about the tiered .name WHOIS proposal.
There is no way that data is sold and it would be difficult to persuade that there is a need for this. .CA is a thick registry model, relative to ccTLDs, there is the expectation from Governments that registration data is sovereign.
Complaints become integrated into customer support, and while they may have been a problem in the begining, once registrars are aware thet there is a check, there is no longer a problem.
Core of data will not be escrowed out of the country.
Marilyn Cade thanked Berny on behalf the Task Force for the time he spent and his valuable contribution.
Group 1: Steve Metalitz
What should be done to improve contractual data
Validating WHOIS data
Group 2: Rom Mohan
Uniformity and Consistency
Consider gTLDs and ccTLDs separately
Require ICANN should take action against Registrars who omit or give irregular formats
Thick Registry model allows for uniformity and consistency of data
Few ccTLDs have signed contractual agreement and ICANN should encourage ccTLDs to come into line with gTLDs.
ICANN should begin a voluntry program and create a best practice model for registries.
Observe IETF work
Group 3 : not a lot of progress
Group 4: Looked at survey and at responses
Tighten Registrar accreditaytion bulk access agreement.
Recommendation, limit entity who would have legitimate use.
Does all privacy have to be regulated for all.
What kind of access must be mandated by ICANN
Post outline for final report
Present work is completing outreach.