Re: [nc-whois] RE: DRAFT section re WHOIS Implementation Committee Report
On 2003-01-27 19:47:09 -0500, Steve Metalitz wrote:
> Here is the "first cut" promised below. Please "have at it"
> before or during our conference call tomorrow. Obviously, among
> other things that would cause this text to need to change would
> be any substantial change in the Whois Implementation Committee
> report from the draft previously circulated.
I share Steve's concern that the steps to be taken when updated
contact information looks "implausible" [3(d)] need to be spelled
out, and I also share the concern that the process outlined in 3(e)
is still somewhat unclear.
However, the proposal to take an approach in which "implausible"
data (provided as an update in the case of an accuracy complaint)
can lead to an immediate cancellation of a domain name does not look
right to me -- in particular, this seems to contradict the Task
Force's general observation that "accuracy" should be defined as a
"functional" notion. Ultimately, this approach brings us
dangerously close to cancelling existing domain names based on some
automated system's idea of what's plausible and what's not.
At the very least, implausible data should not lead to the
cancellation of a domain name when there is still room within the
verification period (the -- currently -- 15 days from the RAA) to
settle any open question. In fact, according to the present RAA, a
registrant who submits updated information during the 15 day period
is not in material breach of his agreement, so I'd expect that, if
the registrar has questions, that discussion should take place
without putting the domain name on hold or cancelling it. (Note
that, if and when the registrar eventually finds out that the
registrant willfully provided wrong information as an update [e.g.,
moves around the world in 80 minutes by updating every couple of
seconds], that registrant is immediately breaking the agreement, so
the registrar could cancel the domain name right away.)
Concerning the 15 day period, I wonder where the individual
constituencies are on this at this point of time.
Thomas Roessler <email@example.com>