Re: [nc-whois] Fw: Last-Verified Date Contact Element

["Ram Mohan" <rmohan@afilias.info>]

abel,
i guess i need to see some more specifics on this -- my sense is that the
current system is broken when it comes to a number of items we're trying to
solve.

your suggestion that registries & registrars for gTLDs and ccTLDs "return
the fields to what they were meant for" makes sense, however it means that
we need a mechanism that:
(a) clearly defines what they were "meant for" and what they are actually
used for
(b) provide compelling reasons to providers why their current
implementations should be changed
(c) provides sufficient encouragement and impetus to make these changes
happen.

to your other point
>>" If modifications to the domain in any way do not lead to verification in
any way
>> that would leave the registrar/try open to some serious trouble..."

this is reality today.  much Whois data is inaccurate, unfilled or
intentionally left blank, although the domain record is modified for these
domains.  see the OECD case study from Bucharest for a clear example:
http://www.icann.org/bucharest/captioning-early-morning-28jun02.htm#DavidSma
ll

-ram
----- Original Message -----
From: "Abel Wisman" <abel@able-towers.com>
To: "'Rick Wesson'" <wessorh@ar.com>
Cc: <nc-whois@dnso.org>
Sent: Sunday, October 27, 2002 4:44 PM
Subject: RE: [nc-whois] Fw: Last-Verified Date Contact Element


> Rick,
>
> I am referring to mmy earlier postings to the whois list and the GA
> list.
>
> The whois problems and solutions can be extensive or plain simple,
> considering the workings of ICANN atm there will most likely not be a
> simple way to do it, and the "briefing" after the fact by ICANN Counsel
> has not helped in any way to expedite the outcome.
>
> In my opinion the current rfc AND the contract between ICANN and gTLD's
> leave enough room for manouvering.
> I do appreciate that IETF and the registrar/registry community are
> willing to "solve" the problem as well but remain on my point of view
> that elaborate measures are not really needed.
>
> If we respect the privacy as the original rfc does in a sense without
> being specific, if we return the fields to what they were meant for,
> instead of repeating the owner-data (lets assume there is ownership for
> easy reference) then we would have solved several problems in one go:
>
> No private data of the owner is publicly available
> Contacts such as admin and tech are real contacts for problems of either
> sort
>
> All parties then have more at stake to keep the data current.
>
> If the registrars would reduce the length of registration, thus forcing
> owners to renew more often and thus having a point in time where data
> can be automatically verified, there will be far less inaccurate data.
>
> Based on those principles, one can follow the .name registry ideas and
> make more data available where needed and to ceritfied parties for a
> price, in between you can easily still remain your database (registrar)
> with opt-in clients and make some serious money out of that.
>
> The "last modified" field is an example of something that is used
> different left and right and I do not see why there should be an
> additional field for "last verified".
> If modifications to the domain in any way do not lead to verification in
> any way that would leave the registrar/try open to some serious trouble,
> if someone wants to make a change to a domain registration then
> verification is afaik always needed, either by passwd or by fax,
> henceforth if it would not be used to display registry updates that are
> not directly related to the domain then the field in question would
> already have such defnition.
>
> Finally based on above principles it would not be that hard to stay
> within the directive for the EU on privacy laws and a cross-over use fo
> port 43 within a standard whois.nic.tld would come very close to a cross
> tld search.
>
> Based on that opinion and those thought is it my opinion that we (and I
> am just as guilty in the TF as the rest) are looking to re-invent the
> wheel.
>
>
> Kind regards
>
> Abel
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Rick Wesson [mailto:wessorh@ar.com]
> Sent: 27 October 2002 06:59
> To: Abel Wisman
> Cc: 'Ram Mohan'; nc-whois@dnso.org
> Subject: RE: [nc-whois] Fw: Last-Verified Date Contact Element
>
>
>
> Abel,
>
> could you be more specific, i don't understand your comment.
>
> -rick
>
> On Sat, 26 Oct 2002, Abel Wisman wrote:
>
> > I couldn't agree more but only wonder why so many in so many different
>
> > different ways are trying to re-invent wheels
> >
> > Kind regards
> >
> > Abel
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: owner-nc-whois@dnso.org [mailto:owner-nc-whois@dnso.org] On
> > Behalf Of Ram Mohan
> > Sent: 26 October 2002 14:07
> > To: nc-whois@dnso.org
> > Cc: Rick H Wesson
> > Subject: [nc-whois] Fw: Last-Verified Date Contact Element
> >
> >
> > Task Force Members:
> > For those of you not following the various technical events happening
> > in IETF, this one is of value.  Rick & I have been discussing the
> > value of adding a new field to the WHOIS, called "Last Verified" date
> > that allows registrars/registry to show when the information was last
> > verified.
> >
> > It has now been proposed formally to the IETF EPP Working Group, and
> > is on a fast track.
> >
> > Similarly, a WHOIS element called <private>, introduced by other IETF
> > working group members (to allow for privacy) is on a fast track.
> >
> > We have debated both these items in our TF, and I believe that this is
>
> > a step in the right direction for domain name registrants worldwide.
> >
> > -ram
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Rick Wesson" <wessorh@ar.com>
> > To: <shollenbeck@verisign.com>
> > Cc: <ietf-provreg@cafax.se>; <ietf-not43@lists.verisignlabs.com>;
> > <iesg@ietf.org>
> > Sent: Wednesday, October 23, 2002 11:34 AM
> > Subject: Last-Verified Date Contact Element
> >
> >
> > >
> > > Scott && IESG,
> > >
> > > I realized that there is an item we have overlooked in the wg. In
> > > private conversations, myself and others have noted that there is no
>
> > > way to identify the last time a contact object was verified.
> > >
> > > I propose that we add a "Last-Verified" date element to the contact
> > > object so that registries/registrars may express the last time the
> > > object was verified. Since contacts have no expiration date and the
> > > "last-modified" date is irreverent to verification.
> > >
> > > I believe that this will aid in identifying old, stale and
> > > irreverent
> > > data within a registry and if the element is published in CRISP or
> > > whois to the community in general.
> > >
> > > I know it is late in the game for identifing issues with the epp
> > > proposals so I have CCed the IESG.
> > >
> > > -rick
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>