I have undertaken both an edit of the IPC proposal and a merger of this proposal with a position more consistent with the registrar constituency's position on this issue. I would urge the other constituencies to further edit this version of the document to ensure that their positions are also taken into account. A redlined MS-Word version of these changes is attached. A text version follows my comments below. Background comments... Re: Compliance. (old point #1) - ICANN should expand its compliance activities to ensure that registars and other relevant parties meet their whois related obligations. This shouldn't be a separate or new effort, but something that should be undertaken in the context of other activities. I have modified the IPC proposal to take this into account. Re: Development of best practices. (old point #2) - The registrar constituency concurs with recommending that the GNSO undertake an effort to further document best practices in this area. I do not believe that we should be making specific recommendations regarding who and how and should leave the GNSO Council sufficient leeway to pursue this objective in any manner it deems appropriate. I have modified Brian's proposal accordingly. Re: Identifying verification mechanisms. (old point #3) - I have substantially modified this passage to ensure that registrars have the freedom necessary to implement useful mechanisms in any manner they deem appropriate. As I stressed on the call this morning, requiring processes that *must* be automated or must be *manual* has a distinct and undesirable impact on registrar and registry operations that can be avoided by not including specific implementation details in the policy recommendations. All language regarding specific implementation types, protocols and technologies has been removed from the IPC document and replaced with a requirements driven alternative that provides for roughly the same outcome. Re: additional Whois data elements. (old point #1 - repeated, should be #4) - I have completely removed this point. Recommending additional whois data elements is specifically out of scope for consideration by this task force. As I mentioned this morning, I would support this recommendation being referred to the appropriate task force in a formal communique from our chairman. Re: Development of compliance plans. (old point #3) - As I mentioned this morning, requiring registrars to develop a plan that outlines how they expect to become compliant with an agreement that they should already be compliant with is an inappropriate recommendation. Accordingly, I have stricken this proposal entirely. Re: contract modifications. (old point #7) - I have modified this recommendation to reflect prior contractual implementation analysis work done by ICANN pursuant to the development of consensus policy development. Typically, relevant issues are identified by an Implementation Committee who works with the ICANN staff to ensure that the recommendations of the GNSO are implementable and meaningful from a contractual perspective. Re: recommendations to undertake ongoing work (old point #12) - It is appropriate for this task force to recommend further examination of the salient issues, but it is inappropriate for the recommendation to be limited solely to being a policy development process. Further work could include the creation of a President's Working Group, a study committee, an analysis by a third party consultant or possibly, initiation of the policy development process. I do not believe that we are looking to specifically recommend further policy development prior to the identification of the relevant issues. I have expanded the scope of the IPC proposal accordingly. I am available to answer questions at the convenience of the Task Force. -rwr ] Text version without redline follows: Best Practices The surveys conducted by Task Force 3 did not result in any meaningful level of response that could serve as a basis for assessing best practices for improving data accuracy and verification. Nevertheless, the Task Force compiled a list of preliminary recommendations as set forth below. 1) ICANN should continue to develop its ongoing compliance program and ensure that contractual parties are meeting the WHOIS-related provisions of the present agreements, and should devote adequate resources to such a compliance program. Specific attention should be paid to; a) the resources assigned to managing this plan; b) the specific elements of compliance that the internet community is primarily concerned with; c) development and implementation of a graduated scale of sanctions that can be applied against those who are not in compliance with their obligations or otherwise infringing the contracted rights under these agreements; d) Measurement and reporting mechanisms that allow appropriate analysis of the effectiveness of this ongoing program with specific attention paid initially to existing compliance assista nce mechanisms such as ICANN's online Whois data inaccuracy reporting tools ; e) Continued outreach to and education of affected stakeholders to ensure that existing requirements and obligations are understood and met and that new requirements are captured and appropriately dealt with. This effort should ensure that ICANN advisories related to this issue are specifically brought to the attention of newly accredited Registrars and that resources be made available to the Registrar community to ensure that the impact and scope of these obligations are apparent and understood. Similar resources should be made available to new Registrants and brought to their attention via the registration agreement that all Registrants must agree to prior to the activation of their gTLD registration ; f) Ongoing development and promotion of gTLD Registry, Registrar and Registrant best practices that foster the accuracy of the Registrant data contained in the Whois database 2) Best practices and technologies that are viewed as being mechanisms for improving the accuracy of Whois data should be documented by ICANN and disseminated to accredited registrars and other relevant parties as part of ICANN's ongoing educational and compliance initiatives. 3) Specific examination of Registrar data collection and protection practices be undertaken by the GNSO Council (or another appropriate body) in order that the GNSO community has sufficient and appropriate appreciation of the policy implications of the various data protection regulations in effect in the various jurisdictions that Registrars operate. .