admin contact has changed (e.g an employee
has left the company), and finally the information was provided
incorrectly on purpose (this is less common and more difficult to
resolve).
if no response is received after 30 days
the name should be placed in REGISTRAR-HOLD status (or equivalent). The 30 days allows some flexibility in
implementation for the registrar to try alternative means of communication
(including international postal mail).
While 15 days could be sufficient in some cases, and 30 days better
in other cases, it is easier from an implementation and enforcement point
of view to just extend the time to 30 days for all cases. This is assuming that the data is
inaccurate via an oversight from the registrant (the majority of cases)
and not a deliberate attempt to provide false information.
the registrar can continue to try to
contact the registrant using various other means after the name has been
placed on HOLD, but normally the registrant of an active name will contact
the registrar themselves
the name would remain in REGISTRAR-HOLD
status until the contact information is updated, or the name is deleted
from the registry by the registrar for lack of renewal. Given that a registrant has not
responded to an attempt to use the contact information, the registrar
should confirm that the registrant is contactable via the new information
that is provided before the name is moved from Registrar HOLD to active
status. This could be done via any
of the contact methods (email, telephone, fax, or postal address).
this protects the registrant from any
attempts at domain name hijacking
CORRECTION phase
- -registrar must present to the
Registrant the current WHOIS information, and remind the registrant that
provision of false WHOIS information can be grounds for cancellation of
their domain name registration.
Registrants must review their WHOIS data, and make any corrections
- -A registrar may use various heuristic
techniques to do some data validation of any changes (e.g check that a USA
city existing within a particular USA state) but such techniques are not
applicable uniformly across the globe.
Given that data validation approaches are not infallible, a
registrar may still accept new address information that doesn’t pass the
checks by the registrar, but the registrar must obtain further justification
from the registrant as to why the address is correct (possibly by asking
for some documentation that looks to be valid at face value to the
registrar). In future WHOIS
information may include a “last verified” field, to confirm when a
registrant has last explicitly confirmed the accuracy of the WHOIS
information.
-