Table of Contents

I. Executive Summary

The WHOIS Task Force presents its Interim Report on WHOIS, which includes recommendations regarding whether ICANN should seek to modify the WHOIS policy for comment to the DNSO Constituencies, the General Assembly, and the public at large.  The Interim Report is primarily focused on recommendations which were identified in our Final Report on the Survey, presented at the ICANN meeting, Bucharest, June 24-28,2002. The recommendations also ask several questions to the community regarding further kinds of work in WHOIS that the Task Force believes should be examined further.

 The Interim Report addresses the four key areas, which were identified in the survey:

·        Accuracy of the data contained in the WHOIS database

·        Uniformity of formats and elements across various TLDs and registrars, including ccTLDs

·        Better searchability

·        Better protection of data subjects from marketing use of the data contained in the WHOIS database

As noted above, the Interim Report identifies some specific policy recommendations as well as outlining ideas for undertaking further work on the WHOIS issues.  The final report will also include previous documents, which are available on the Task Force archive, including the survey instrument, the responses, a previous final report, which provides an analysis of the responses to the survey, and other outreach documentation, which has taken place under the direction of the Task Force.

A total of 3,035 survey responses were received. After extensive analysis to develop the Final Report on the Survey, the Task Force then developed further work in small groups; each of the working groups of the Task Force developed detailed DRAFT recommendations. Items one and four: Accuracy and Protection of data subjects respectively both have concrete suggestions for action in the near term by ICANN, as well as suggesting longer term work activities. Although the findings are very clear related to marketing uses of WHOIS data, and therefore the Task Force was able to make some recommendations, the Task Force also agrees that there are several questions, which have not yet been fully examined regarding access to WHOIS data.

 Items 2 and 3: Uniformity of elements and Better search ability both call for both mid term and longer term work items. Uniformity of formats and elements are reliant upon developments in the standards areas, as well as adoption by geld registrars and registries, and separately, development of an agreed to approach to address similar needs in colds, taking into account national law and local stakeholder perspectives.  In particular, Item 3, better searchability, notes the significant value of emerging standards.  Consideration will be needed to the pros and cons of increased searchability.

All of the suggestions for improvements will require some change in either practice or policy. Some changes affect registrars; other changes affect both registrars and registries, and some recommended changes will require participation by the ccTLD community.  In all cases, the Task Force expects the broad community to benefit from recommended changes.  The recommendations of the Task Force prioritize the importance of WHOIS in the gTLDs, however, the Task Force believes that there is merit for users, and we hope mutual benefit to the ccTLDs to participate in a process to agree to both uniformity and consistency of data elements, and to participate in development and adoption of industry standards, as they become available.

Background:

The Task Force was tasked by the ICANN Domain Name Supporting Organization (DNSO) Names Council to give advice on WHOIS Policy. The Task Force followed the work of a Names Council WHOIS Committee convened by ICANN staff to give advice on implementation of WHOIS for the .com/.net/.org domains as required under the Registrar agreement. This Committee addressed implementing questions related to WHOIS in these domains and concluded its work in April, 2001.  The implementation of the committee’s work included the establishment of a WHOIS Task Force on domain name system policy.  The Task Force was approved in the Names Council meeting of February 8, 2001.

In general, the purpose of the Task Force’s work is to consult with the community with regard to establishing whether a review of any questions related to ICANN’s WHOIS policy is due and is to recommend a mechanism for such a review. As the Task Force has worked, they have chosen to interpret their mandate broadly, and have shared that perspective with the Names Council on several occasions, as well as publishing this interpretation in the various public presentations that they have made.

The Task Force has undertaken significant efforts to develop mechanisms to seek consultation with the broad community, which have included conducting a survey; analyzing and publishing and presenting the findings of the survey; presenting preliminary recommendations for public comment and at ICANN meetings for discussion by the Names Council and the community, and finally, undertaking further dialogue with interested parties to take additional comments on the draft recommendations which the Task Force has developed.  T he Final Report of the Survey is recommended to all as a resource document.

II             Terms of Reference:

Link to TOR:

            From the beginning, to support their broad mission, the Task Force members have been committed to gaining an understanding of how WHOIS is used, how it affects both those who provide WHOIS services and its users, what concerns exists, as well as taking a forward look at how uses of WHOIS may be changing with the growth and extension of the Internet and issues which might need further examination and analysis.

Participation and Outreach:

            The WHOIS Task Force has had the benefit of broad, diverse, and strong participation of all constituencies and the General Assembly. At its creation, it was chaired by Paul Kane, Registrar Constituency; and had one representative from each of the seven constituencies and the General Assembly.  When Mr. Kane’s term on the Names Council ended, co-chairs were elected by the Names Council Task Force: Antonio Harris, ISPC Constituency and Marilyn Cade, Business Constituency. The Task Force was also then expanded and each constituency and the General Assembly added additional participants to the Task Force. The details of Task Force membership are provided in the Appendix.

The Task Force completed a web-based survey, which, while not statistically valid, provided a snapshot of the uses, issues, concerns, and perspectives of those who chose to respond. The survey was published in June, 2001, with one extension in time for responses. The survey closed in August, 2001, with 3035 responses received. The survey and an analysis of the survey’s responses  [IN APPENDIX] and an interim version of the findings were presented in Ghana, March, 2002, and the findings discussed in the Names Council. The presentation and the draft report were published for further comment on the initial findings.  All comments were taken into account, and a Draft Final Report of the Survey’s Findings was presented at Bucharest, June 24-28, and its findings discussed both in the General Assembly, and in the Names Council.  The Task Force announced that its intent was to undertake further examination of the initial final findings based on the survey and other inputs, and has spent the past four months undertaking discussions, and dialogue to undertake recommendations to support some policy changes, as well as recommendations for further work in the WHOIS area.   The Task  Force has recently also undertaken selective consultation by hosting open calls with a small group of interested individuals who have chosen to respond to an open conference call consultation. Those consultations were informational to the Task Force and are documented in Transcripts, which will also be linked to the Final Report, and are presently available on the Task Force archive.

PROCESS FOR COMMENT FROM THE COMMUNITY ON THE INTERIM FINAL REPORT:

Each stage of the Task Force’s work has included publication and presentations.  Comments have been received and taken into account as the next stage of work of the Task Force was developed.  Following the last round of publication for comment, a number of additional comments were received, and these are provided in a later section.

This document’s recommendations are now open for further comment for a time frame of approximately three weeks; this will continue through the Shanghai meeting in order to enable those traveling to the Shanghai meeting sufficient time to provide comments. 

Comments are sought through distribution to the |DNSO constituencies, the General Assembly, and by providing a web based comment forum through the ICANN web site, as well as an open session during the General Assembly in Shanghai. The recommendations will also be discussed at the Names Council meeting in Shanghai, based on a presentation, which will include Policy Recommendations and Possible further recommendations. 

The Task Force will take into account for its Shanghai discussions any comments received by October 22, 2002, and will then, upon completion of the ICANN meeting, take into account feedback from the public at the Shanghai meeting, from the Names Council, and on the web site, in order to finalize their recommendations to the Names Council.  The final report, with a resolution for voting will then be presented to the Names Council at the closing of the final report and forwarding of the final report in early December, 2002, for a decision and approval of recommendations and forwarding to the Board.

The Task Force expects to recommend some policy changes and to recommend some further work, with a recommendation to the Names Council on various approaches to undertake any further work that they approve.

III.              Draft Conclusions

This section begins with an excerpt from the Final Report on the Survey, Bucharest, and June 2002, which is provided merely for the reader’s convenience. This section is merely a reproduction of key elements from VIII: Request for Discussion: Possible WHOIS Recommendations.  (Non-related comments related to how to comment on that document are removed)

“VIII. Possible WHOIS Recommendations from Final Report on the Survey.

The present report identifies four areas for policy consideration:

1.      Accuracy of the data contained in the WHOIS database.

2.      Uniformity of data formats and elements across various TLDs and registrars, including ccTLDs.

3.      Better searchability.

4.      Better protection of data subjects from marketing use of the data contained in the WHOIS database.

A generally high level of satisfaction was found with respect to current data elements and non-marketing uses of WHOIS in the gTLD environment. These results reflect the existing community consensus, and we have not detected any changes in this consensus.  However, the evolution of the community’s consensus with respect to the WHOIS database must be closely monitored, in particular with regard to the impact of the rollout of new gTLDs (not present at the time the survey was conducted) and evolving national law.

This chapter tries to explore possible approaches to address the issues identified as concerns, and to identify the interests affected by them. 

The Task Force solicits your comments on these possible recommendations. 

·         Accuracy of data contained in the WHOIS database

The current Registrar Accreditation Agreement[1] (RAA), section 3.7.7.1, requires registered name holders to provide to their registrars "accurate and reliable contact details."  According to 3.7.2, the "willful provision of inaccurate or unreliable information" or the failure to respond to inquiries on the accuracy in a timely manner  "shall constitute a material breach of the [...] contract and be a basis for cancellation of the Registered Name registration."  ICANN has recently called registrars’ attention to these provisions, by issuing an advisory[2] concerning WHOIS data accuracy.

The Task Force believes that the approach of actually enforcing the existing contractual provisions is the essential first step toward improving  WHOIS data accuracy in the gTLD environment. .

The WHOIS Task Force is aware that although existing contracts allow for enforcement of applicable contractual provisions, in many cases, the only allowed penalty for a breach of the contract is revocation of the ability to register names by the registrar. This all-or-nothing system may actually impede enforcement.  In addition, registrars have not established  clear enforcement mechanisms to ensure their customers (resellers, ISPs or end-users) provide accurate data.

The Task Force believes that a method of graduated sanctions or enforcements against parties who breach the requirement to provide accurate information and to maintain an accurate WHOIS database,  potentially as a combination of policy and financial penalties, should be considered, in order to facilitate the actual enforcement of the current policy with respect to WHOIS data accuracy.

If enforcement of current contractual provisions  does not lead to an improvement of WHOIS data accuracy, then more substantial changes to the RAA itself or the establishment of consensus policies (as necessary) should be considered. 

For example, mandatory periodic re-validation of WHOIS data has been identified as one important technique for improving data quality, which may require a change in ICANN policy, to the extent that registrars do not voluntarily adopt it.

·        Uniformity of data formats and elements across various TLDs and registrars, including ccTLDs.

 Currently, whois data elements are, in general, uniform across gTLDs. They are not uniform across country-code top-level domains, some of which do not even provide a WHOIS or equivalent service.  There is currently no uniform format for the responses provided by WHOIS services.

The Task Force believes that the questions of uniform data formats and uniformity of data elements need to be discussed and handled separately. 

As far as data formats are concerned, an open technical standardization process building on the work of ICANN’s earlier .com/.net/.org WHOIS Committee[3] and the ietf-whois mailing list[4] should be undertaken. The committee recommended in early 2001 that a standard WHOIS format should be phased in as expeditiously as possible that does not rely on TCP port 43, such as the XML-based format, which is described in detail in the Internet draft ‘WHOIS Export and Exchange Format’ of January 26, 2001.

The present Task Force believes that the use of such a uniform data format across gTLD and ccTLD environments should be evaluated. 

The survey data evaluated by the Task Force seem to indicate that there is considerable support for such uniformity among the respondents to the questionnaire.[5]

The Task Force believes that WHOIS data elements should be uniform across all gTLDs.

Uniformity of data elements across gTLDs and ccTLDs, while found desirable by an extremely strong majority of respondents to the Task Force’s survey[6], can be expected to lead to conflicting views caused by national or regional cultural and legal differences with respect to a number of issues, including registrants’ privacy rights, and divergent views regarding the relationship of ccTLDs to ICANN consensus policies.  

The Task Force believes that this topic should be the subject of separate deliberations.  These deliberations should take into account specific aspects of  the TLD environments, as well as the value of  accountability and transparency across the domain name system.    Public interest concerns should be taken into account in an appropriate manner. The  objective should be to identify the best way to make progress toward the goal of the uniformity that all  users of the system clearly desire. 

·        Better searchability of WHOIS databases. 

The Task Force’s Survey covered three kinds of improved searchability of WHOIS databases:  (1) Centralized public access to WHOIS databases on a per-TLD level[7], (2) the use of data elements different from the domain name as query keys[8], and (3) the provision of still more advanced database query capabilities, and centralized search services across TLDs.[9] The Task Force’s Survey. indicates that, among respondents, there is demand and support for each of these services. The first two of these aspects (centralized access on a per-TLD basis, and the use of other data elements as search keys) mostly amount to a restoration of the InterNIC WHOIS status quo ante[10], and may be considered part of the current policy environment[11],  but they are not being enforced.

The more advanced services described under (3) do presently not exist in the .com/.net/.org environment.  However, centralized access to one or more cross-TLD WHOIS services is specifically provided for in the existing gTLD registry agreements.[12]  One registry also has taken on an obligation to conduct research and development activities toward a universal WHOIS service.[13]   Furthermore, enhanced searchability is to be offered by at least some of the new gTLD registries in accordance with their accreditation agreements.[14]  

As far as the gTLD environment is concerned, all these services can be implemented either by registrars/registries or as third party services, based on Bulk Access to WHOIS data.[15] The survey revealed that many of those who demand such services believe that the services should be free for users, and should be paid for as part of registration fees. 

To facilitate the restoration of full searchability of WHOIS databases [see (1) and (2) above], ICANN should explore both enforcing the mandate to registrars and registries to provide (or to cooperate in the provision of) such complete WHOIS search service, and a market-based approach based on bulk access to WHOIS data.

With respect to the more advanced services described in (3) above, the Task Force does not recommend any policy changes. The Task Force suggests that ICANN explore how best to swiftly develop and implement a plan for cross-registry WHOIS services, including through third party services, based on bulk access to WHOIS data.

·        Marketing use of WHOIS data; bulk access provisions.

The survey undertaken by the Task Force strongly suggests[16] that respondents generally do not accept the use of their personal information contained in the WHOIS database for unsolicited marketing activities. Respondents also generally preferred opt-in approaches to such marketing use over opt-out approaches (like the one envisioned by section 3.3.6.6 of the current RAA).

Based on these results, the Task Force recommends a review of the current bulk access provisions of the Registrar Accreditation Agreement.

Such review should explore the option to reduce registrars’ discretion in the design of their respective bulk access agreements, in favor of stronger privacy protection for registrants,  stronger restrictions on marketing use of WHOIS data, and facilitation of bulk access for value-added non-marketing services, as originally contemplated in the RAA.    In particular, the following possible changes  should be examined more closely:

·        The policy could attempt to ensure that protection mechanisms can’t be circumvented by third parties selling indirect access to bulk data.  This could, for instance, be accomplished by changing “may require” in section 3.3.6.5 to “shall require.”  It could also be accomplished by requiring bulk access  users to impose conditions on the use of their products and services, which are similar to the ones in ICANN’s policy.

·        Sections 3.3.6.3 (prohibition of use of bulk access data for marketing purposes) and 3.3.6.6 (opt-out provision) could be simplified,  unified, and extended to include contact data of organizational entities. Marketing use of registrants’ data outside existing business relationships could depend on the registrant’s prior agreement (“opt-in”).

Interim Recommendations

In order to further develop the work of the Task Force, four small working groups were formed, and chaired by members of the Task Force. The chairs, and membership of each Working Group are included in an appendix {to be provided in final report}. 

After drafting recommendations, these were shared with the other Task Force members, and were the subject of discussion among Task Force members and some preliminary outreach to concerned and interested parties who were invited to provide initial input.   This outreach is included in the Outreach section {to be further documented in Final Report and through the inclusion of the minutes and transcripts}. 

These Interim Recommendations are provided below for comment by the community.  Please follow the format provided in the document by providing your comments as much as possible by noting the heading or number of the section. This will help the Task Force in its review of comments.  Some explanatory comments from the Task Force are also provided and are in CAPITAL LETTERS

Interim 1.0 :  Accuracy of WHOIS Data commendations

The Task Force recommends

1. Enforcement of existing contractual obligations (in the Registrar Accreditation Agreement and in the ICANN agreements with the new gTLD registries) regarding accuracy of WHOIS data

THE TASK FORCE DOES NOT BELIEVE THE FOLLOWING WILL INCUR SIGNIFICANT ADDITIONAL COSTS, AND ARE IN FACT REQURIED BY EXISTING CONTRACTS AND ACCREDITATION AGREEMENTS.  

In the following, references to registrars also include the "thick" gTLD registries, unless otherwise indicated.

1)      ICANN should ask registrars to identify, by a date certain, a reliable contact point for reports of false WHOIS data and for requests for registration cancellations [OR TEMPORARY SUSPENSION] based thereon.

2)      ICANN should post those contact points on its web site (perhaps on the list of accredited registrars)

3)      ICANN should add an [optional/STANDARIZED] complaint form on this issue to the internic.net site.   In order to better ensure follow up, the complaint form [would/could] supply a "ticket number" for the complaint and [would/could] be designed for ICANN to be copied on the registrars' response to the complaint.    

SOME OF THE TASK FORCE MEMBERS BELIEVE THAT SOME OTHER AREAS WHICH CAN IMPROVE DATA ACCURACY MAY ALSO HAVE ADDITIONAL COSTS ASSOCIATED WITH THEM, BUT SHOULD BE EXAMINED FOR IMPACT AND FEASIBILITY OF IMPROVING THE ACCURACY OF DATA.  SOME OF THESE ARE PRESENTED FOR COMMENT AND FEEDBACK. 

(4)  ICANN should supplement its May 10, 2002 registrar advisory as follows:

(a)        ICANN should instruct registrars to use commonly available
automated mechanisms to screen out obviously incorrect contact data (e.g., ZIP code/postcode matching software [at least for North American registrants], rejecting incomplete fields in contact data, etc.).

(b)        ICANN should remind registrars that "willful provision of
inaccurate or unreliable information" is a material breach of the
registration agreement that should lead to cancellation of the registration unless there are extenuating circumstances, and that this breach can be detected on the face of the data submitted if it is blatantly false. (It is extremely unlikely that someone would submit such contact data other than willfully.) 

 In these circumstances there is no need to attempt to contact
the registrant before cancellation, and no need to wait 15 days.  Once this willful conduct is brought to the attention of registrars, the registration should be subject to cancellation. 

(c)                ICANN should clearly state that "accepting unverified
'corrected' data from a registrant that has already deliberately provided incorrect data IS NOT [not "may not be," as the advisory states]
appropriate."  Accordingly, registrars should require that registrants not
only respond 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 can be treated as a failure to
respond and thus grounds for cancellation of the domain name registration.

(d)        ICANN should tell registrars to treat a complaint about false
WHOIS data as to one registration as a complaint about false WHOIS data as
to all registrations that contain identical contact data, and all such
registrations should be made the subject of an inquiry, corrected, or
cancelled, as the case may be, en bloc.

(e)        Registrations to be cancelled on the basis of submission of false contact data should be subject to a Redemption Grace Period similar to that being implemented for other deletes in .com/.net/.org, but requiring submission of verified contact data for redemption.   

ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS ON WHICH COMMENT IS SOUGHT:

1.      Will implementation of the proposed steps listed above be likely to improve the accuracy of WHOIS data?

2.       What additional or alternative steps within the framework of the current agreements should be considered?  

3.      Under 2 above, should Registrars and affected Registries also be [required/asked] to post such contact information in a visible location on their web site and keep it current?

4.      What kind of communications with registrants regarding accuracy requirements would be most effective: notice in registration agreement, period email reminder to update contact information, or other means?

5.      What other suggestions do you have?

(B)    Regarding the possibility of graduated sanctions for violations of existing contractual agreements, the Task Force recommends the following:

(1) In renegotiation of the RAA, ICANN should consider a series of graduated sanctions whose aim is to improve the compliance of registrars to the terms of the RAA with regard to the accuracy of WHOIS data.

(2) In addition, it should be re-emphasized that registrars are responsible for the compliance of their agents  (i.e. Resellers, and other intermediaries) with WHOIS accuracy directives.

(3) ICANN should modify the contracts of Registry and Registrar operators who are under contractual obligation with ICANN in the following manner:

(4) Graduated Sanctions – “3 Strikes Policy”

(a) Definitions:

For the sake of uniformity, the word “Registrars” below shall include ICANN authorized registrars, as well as any intermediaries and agents of such registrars who engage in the sales and service of Internet domain names through such ICANN authorized registrars, directly or indirectly.  “Documented inaccuracies in WHOIS data” does not refer to individual cases, which are the subject of complaints, but to recurring patterns or practices of non-compliance identified by ICANN. 

(b) Who do the sanctions apply to:

The “3 Strikes Policy” shall apply to Registrars, as defined above, and thick registries.

( c) What are the sanctions:

(c-1.) Strike One:

The Registrar shall be provided thirty calendar days to take necessary action to correct documented inaccuracies in WHOIS data.  If, at the expiration of the thirty-day period, the information in the WHOIS database has not been corrected, and the Registrar does not submit to ICANN evidence of having taken vigorous steps to correct such inaccuracies, the Registrar shall be:

a)      Provided a notice of non-compliance with ICANN contract regarding WHOIS accuracy

b)      Levied a fine of $250 for each instance of non-compliance.  The fine would be collected from funds deposited by registrars with registries (ICANN agreements with registries would also have to be revised to authorize this collection).  (A collection mechanism would also need to be provided with respect to thick registries.) 

c)      Asked to provide a plan to ensure correction of accuracy of the WHOIS data

d)      Given a further thirty days to take action to correct documented inaccuracies in WHOIS data, with penalties for non-compliance as below

(c-2) Strike Two:

The Registrar shall be provided a further thirty calendar days to take necessary action to correct documented inaccuracies in WHOIS data.  This time period shall commence at the conclusion of the first thirty-day period automatically.  If, at the expiration of the thirty-day period, the information in the WHOIS database has not been corrected, and the Registrar does not submit to ICANN evidence of having taken vigorous steps to correct such inaccuracies, the Registrar shall be:

a)      Provided a second notice of non-compliance with ICANN contract regarding WHOIS accuracy

b)      Levied a fine of $500 for each instance of non-compliance. 

c)      Asked to provide a plan to ensure correction of accuracy of the WHOIS data

d)      Informed that they have one more opportunity to take steps to correct WHOIS data before more serious action is taken against them for material breach of contract

e)      Given a final thirty days to take action to correct documented inaccuracies in WHOIS data, with penalties for non-compliance as below

(c-3) Strike Three:

The Registrar shall be provided a further thirty calendar days to take necessary action to correct documented inaccuracies in WHOIS data.  This time period shall commence at the conclusion of the first thirty-day period automatically.  If, at the expiration of the thirty-day period, the information in the WHOIS database has not been corrected, and the Registrar does not submit to ICANN evidence of having taken vigorous steps to correct such inaccuracies, the Registrar shall be:

a)      Provided a third notice of non-compliance with ICANN contract regarding WHOIS accuracy

b)      Levied a fine of $1,000 for each instance of non-compliance.

c)      The Registrar’s name shall be placed on a public non-compliance list, prominently displayed on ICANN and other public Internet sites.

d)      Asked to provide a plan to ensure correction of accuracy of the WHOIS data

e)      Informed that under the terms of their RAA, they are in danger of incurring further serious penalties, including, should it be so decided, a suspension of Registrar accreditation.

f)        Given a final thirty days to take action to correct documented inaccuracies in WHOIS data, with penalties for non-compliance as below

(c-4) Next Step:

Suspension of accreditation and rights to register new names for 5 days.

(c-5) Final Step:

Removal of accreditation.

(d.) How are the sanctions imposed:

Upon discovery of inaccurate WHOIS information in the authoritative database (the Registrar’s database in the case of thin-registries, and the Registry’s database in the case of thick-registries), the discovering party shall be provided a mechanism to submit a complaint.  Such a complaint shall receive a tracking number to ensure accountability.  [NOTE:  this refers to individual instances, not documented problems that could give rise to the sanctions steps above.  The ICANN September 3, 2002 announcement appears to provide a mechanism similar to this.] 

(e.) When do the sanctions apply:

[see above]

(f.) What is the relief from sanctions:

Correction of data [or cancellation of DN registration].

Documented steps to correct data and proof of action and reasons (if any) for delay.

            QUESTIONS ON WHICH COMMENT IS SOUGHT:

1.      Is there a need for graduated sanctions to improve enforcement of the existing contractual obligations regarding WHOIS data accuracy?

2.      If so, is the system outlined above appropriate? 

3.      What quantity of complaints should be received before sanctions are applied?

4.      If a registrar has reoccurring documented complaints that they fail to respond to when notified by ICANN staff, should there be a shorter time period before c-4 and c-5 are undertaken?

(C)   The Task Force recommends that ICANN consider the following

additional steps in renegotiation of the RAA:

1)      Registrants should be required to review and validate all WHOIS data upon renewal of a registration. 

2)      Registrars should be required to spot-check a sample of registrations in order to validate the accuracy of contact information submitted. 

3)      Besides the use of automated methods to screen out obviously false contact data (see item 4(a) under section (A) above), semi-automated methods such as e-mail pinging, automated dialing to validate telephone numbers, etc., may be used to the greatest extent feasible.

            QUESTIONS ON WHICH COMMENT IS SOUGHT:

1.      How effective will these new requirements be in improving the accuracy of WHOIS data?

2.      What costs will they cause registrars/registries to incur, and how will this affect the cost of domain name registration and competition in this market?  What other changes to the existing agreements ought to be considered?        

INTERIM 2.0:   Uniformity and Consistency Recommendations

            The Task Force survey results strongly indicate that uniformity of data elements and formats across as many TLDs as possible would be in the best interests of Internet users.  The Task Force agrees. 

To the extent possible, a WHOIS query regarding a registration in any TLD should return the same data elements, presented in the same format. However, for practical reasons, it is worth considering the situation of gTLDs and ccTLDs separately.

            In the gTLD environment, registrars and registries are already required by contracts with ICANN to provide similar (although not identical) data elements across gTLDs.  However, this does not always occur in practice. 

The Task Force Recommends:

(A)   Efforts should be undertaken to ensure that to the extent possible, WHOIS queries regarding registration in gTLDs should return the same data elements.

(B)   Discussions should be developed with the ccTLD community to establish how best to move toward a standards based approach for data elements and formats.

(C)   The Task Force recommends that ICANN should take action against gTLD registrars that omit WHOIS data elements or present WHOIS data in irregular formats. 

COMMENT FROM THE TASK FORCE: There are existing obligations within the gTLD community that should receive  more vigorous enforcement –thus helping to resolve the problems.

The Task Force believes that it is possible that uniformity/consistency problems are less serious in gTLD registries using a “thick registry” model.

(D)   ICANN could encourage registries not now using this model to migrate toward it. OR

(E)    Further work could be undertaken to agree on a standard set of data elements, which are then agreed to in the accreditation agreement, or via some other agreed to mechanism.

In consideration of a separate working effort to involve ccTLDs, a few registries have signed agreements with ICANN obligating themselves to carry out future ICANN-adopted policies regarding WHOIS.