Comments re Deletion
Policy
November 5,
2002
The Copyright Coalition on Domain
Names (CCDN), founded in 1999 to advocate the interests of copyright owners in
the domain name system, and currently comprising the associations and companies
listed at the end of this message, offers the following comments on “Notice of
Initiation of Policy Development Process:
Deletion of gTLD Registrations.”
CCDN’s comments are limited to Issue #2. We do not support changing the ICANN
Registrar Accreditation Agreement to extend from 15 days to 45 days the maximum
waiting period before the failure to respond to inquiries from a registrar about
the accuracy of Whois data can be held to constitute a material breach of the
registrant-registrar agreement and a basis for cancellation of the registration.
In most cases, this waiting period is applicable only once the falsity of
Whois data is brought to the attention of the registrar. Many registrars have claimed that it is
not economically or technologically feasible for them to take on any proactive
responsibility to ensure that registrants are living up to this obligation, and
thus are making the inquiries that set the 15-day clock running only after
receiving a complaint.
We are unaware of any persuasive justification for generally extending
the time within which registrants whose contact data is or has become false may
correct that data before risking cancellation of their registrations. Any such extension seems certain to
increase the proportion of data within Whois at any given time that is
false. ICANN should be taking steps
to reduce the amount of false Whois data, not to increase it.
The situation might be different
if the proposal were for a longer time period to apply only to cases in which
the registrar initiates the inquiry on its own, and not in response to a
complaint of false contact data.
(This may be the situation to which the document refers, since otherwise
its reference to “trouble contacting registrants at the time of domain name
renewal” would not appear relevant.)
If a longer waiting period would demonstrably increase incentives for
registrars to undertake these inquiries proactively, then it could be
considered. However, even in this situation, the case for an extended period of
time to correct false contact data remains to be made.
If
a delete policy is to be truly comprehensive, it must cover not only “deletion
following a complaint on WHOIS accuracy,” as Issue 2 is entitled, but also
deletion following non-response to an inquiry by the registrar not stimulated by
a complaint. Furthermore, it must
also address the two other circumstances outlined in Section 3.7.7.2 of the RAA
that can lead to deletion: “willful
provision of inaccurate or unreliable information [or] willful failure promptly
to update information provided to Registrar.” In these circumstances the 15-day
waiting period does not currently apply.
In
our view, and as reflected in the Interim Recommendations of the WHOIS Task
Force, “’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 ... 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.)” A comprehensive deletes policy should
account for this. It should also
take into account the fact that registrars may (and some do) apply their own
policy of allowing less than 15 calendar days for the correction of false
contact data.
Finally,
as reflected in the Interim Recommendations of the WHOIS Task Force, “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.” Of course there may
need to be some variations between the RGP that is now in the process of
implementation, and the appropriate grace period for registrations cancelled
based on false Whois data. Our
point here is that in the latter circumstance, redemption during such a grace
period should only be allowed once current and accurate contact data has been
supplied and appropriately verified, perhaps together with the payment of a
reasonable fee to cover the costs of data verification and administration of the
grace period.
Thank you for the opportunity to
comment.
Steven J. Metalitz
Smith & Metalitz LLP
Counsel to CCDN
CCDN
Participant Organizations
American Society of
Composers, Authors and Publishers (ASCAP)
AOL Time Warner
Broadcast Music, Inc.
(BMI)
Business
Software Alliance (BSA)
Motion Picture
Association of America (MPAA)
Recording Industry
Association of America (RIAA)
Software and
Information Industry Association (SIIA)
The Walt Disney
Company