Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #1548
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST         Wednesday, January 8 2003         Volume 01 : Number 1548

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Tue, 7 Jan 2003 12:57:02 +0100
From: Thomas Roessler <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] WHOIS accuracy, and name deletions

On 2003-01-07 02:15:01 -0800, George Kirikos wrote:

> Folks might not be aware of discussions going on in the WHOIS
> accuracy task force of the DNSO/GNSO. See:

> http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/nc-whois/Arc00/msg00806.html

> for instance. 

> Am I the only one who is concerned that a legitimately held name
> might be deleted due to a simple failure to respond within 15
> days? 

You're certainly not alone with that concern.  But the 15 day period
isn't new at all -- it's current policy, RAA 3.7.7.2.

See <http://does-not-exist.net/issues-accuracy.html#3> for some
links to comments the Task Force got on that topic, in response to
the "Shanghai report".  Subsequent discussions on the Task Force
repeatedly took this up, and several members suggested that the
current policy should be changed.  Bad enough, there was no clear
consensus for this change. Objections basically boiled down to the
desire to be able to quickly and thoroughly take down the really bad
guys' web sites by cancelling the corresponding domain name
registration.  (Of course, that's another can of worms: Notice and
takedown through registrars.)

So, for now, the Task Force's policy report (*) just says that (1)
current accuracy provisions should be enforced, (2) side effects
should be monitored, (3) this is an issue which needs further work.

(*) <http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20021130.NCWhoisTF-accuracy-and-bulkaccess.html>

The public comment address for that report will remain open until 9
January 2003, i.e., Thursday.

PLEASE articulate any concerns with the Task Force's recommendations
in comments sent to <[email-masked]>.  Please do so ASAP.

(Note that the first comment period was in late November and early
December, with a Names Council vote expected for the Amsterdam
meeting.  However, the Names Council decided not to immediately
adopt the report's recommendations.  Instead, another comment period
was started, and there'll be an implementation committee producing a
report on the report by 31 January 2003.  The NC is now expected to
vote on this at some point in February -- you'll have to check their
telephone conference schedule for details.)

> Given the amount of spam out there (it's easy to accidentally
> skip over an email, thinking it was spam), and lack of guaranteed
> delivery of email, I think that this is a very dangerous and
> poorly thought-out proposal for legitimate domain holders,
> especially those with small staffs (or self-employed).

The problem is that this is not a "proposal", but current policy...

By the way, some registrars' agreements with registrants are even
worse than the RAA's 15 days.  One member of the Task Force reported
about a fraudulent accuracy complaint which caused a registrar to
demand a response within 7 (SEVEN!) calendar days.  Not replying
during that time period would have caused cancellation of the domain
name in question.  So there you have yet another policy issue to
deal with: Establishing a uniform /lower/ bound on the time period
to be given to registrants for responding to accuracy inquiries from
their registrars.

> I would hope that OpenSRS and other leading registrars would
> implement a "white-list" (where domain WHOIS is permanently
> marked as "accurate", or if not permanent than for long intervals
> of months, not days) of protected names, or other mechanisms to
> ensure that legitimate and correct domains are not hijacked
> through misuse of this policy, and that domains are protected.
> "Rogue" domain holders, with obviously fake WHOIS should be
> pursued, but legitimate holders should be protected.

Good proposal.

- -- 
Thomas Roessler                        http://log.does-not-exist.net/
- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 07 Jan 2003 06:02:46 -0800
From: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [ga] WHOIS accuracy, and name deletions

George, and/or others, is there any law anywhere that creates a liability
upon an ISP for losing a name for a client?
(I of course speak directly of dotCOM because of course there are for
ccTLDs)
We certainly do not rely upon notification from a registry to tell us
anything regarding an expiry.
In professional offices I believe they are still called ticklers - self
notification of due dates.
Does one say "oops I forgot to pay my mortgage and now I am being
foreclosed"? "Oops I did not know I had to pay taxes each year"?

With that said there is some down right theft going on here which sucks.
Also do not confuse Whois data bases and theft of privacy with loss or
theft of names.

Eric

George Kirikos wrote:

> Hello,
>
> Folks might not be aware of discussions going on in the WHOIS accuracy
> task force of the DNSO/GNSO. See:
>
> http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/nc-whois/Arc00/msg00806.html
>
> for instance.
>
> Am I the only one who is concerned that a legitimately held name might
> be deleted due to a simple failure to respond within 15 days? Given the
> amount of spam out there (it's easy to accidentally skip over an email,
> thinking it was spam), and lack of guaranteed delivery of email, I
> think that this is a very dangerous and poorly thought-out proposal for
> legitimate domain holders, especially those with small staffs (or
> self-employed). I am all for WHOIS accuracy (it helps to promote
> responsible internet usage, and reduce abuse behaviour), but there
> needs to be some balance in that proposal. If someone goes on holidays
> for 3 weeks, or misses an email, conceivably they could find all their
> valuable domains are no longer held by them!
>
> I would hope that OpenSRS and other leading registrars would implement
> a "white-list" (where domain WHOIS is permanently marked as "accurate",
> or if not permanent than for long intervals of months, not days) of
> protected names, or other mechanisms to ensure that legitimate and
> correct domains are not hijacked through misuse of this policy, and
> that domains are protected. "Rogue" domain holders, with obviously fake
> WHOIS should be pursued, but legitimate holders should be protected.
>
> If AT&T, AOL, Google or another elite company moves its offices, and
> happens to not update their WHOIS records for a few weeks, should they
> lose *all* of their domains? Obviously not...they have the lawyers (and
> trademarks) to ensure that they'd get back any domain name that their
> registrar deletes, but smaller companies do not!
>
> Every summer, a lot of people move to new homes or apartments -- should
> they all be rushing to change their WHOIS the exact moment they move,
> or fear losing all their domain names?
>
> Sincerely,
>
> George Kirikos
> http://www.kirikos.com/
> --
> This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 7 Jan 2003 08:03:55 -0600
From: "ezgoing" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Re: WHOIS accuracy, and name deletions

I agree that 15 days is not reasonable.

I believe that the policy of Verisign and other Registrars not releasing
expired domains is more of a problem than the Whois information not being
accurate.  Why hasn't anything ever been done about this problem?

It would be nice if it was accurate but it should require a registered
letter before the domain could be deleted.  Place it on hold after 15 days,
delete after three months if there is no response to a registered letter.

Ed

- ----- Original Message -----
From: "George Kirikos" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Cc: <[email-masked]>
Sent: Tuesday, January 07, 2003 4:15 AM
Subject: WHOIS accuracy, and name deletions

> Hello,
>
> Folks might not be aware of discussions going on in the WHOIS accuracy
> task force of the DNSO/GNSO. See:
>
> http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/nc-whois/Arc00/msg00806.html
>
> for instance.
>
> Am I the only one who is concerned that a legitimately held name might
> be deleted due to a simple failure to respond within 15 days? Given the
> amount of spam out there (it's easy to accidentally skip over an email,
> thinking it was spam), and lack of guaranteed delivery of email, I
> think that this is a very dangerous and poorly thought-out proposal for
> legitimate domain holders, especially those with small staffs (or
> self-employed). I am all for WHOIS accuracy (it helps to promote
> responsible internet usage, and reduce abuse behaviour), but there
> needs to be some balance in that proposal. If someone goes on holidays
> for 3 weeks, or misses an email, conceivably they could find all their
> valuable domains are no longer held by them!
>
> I would hope that OpenSRS and other leading registrars would implement
> a "white-list" (where domain WHOIS is permanently marked as "accurate",
> or if not permanent than for long intervals of months, not days) of
> protected names, or other mechanisms to ensure that legitimate and
> correct domains are not hijacked through misuse of this policy, and
> that domains are protected. "Rogue" domain holders, with obviously fake
> WHOIS should be pursued, but legitimate holders should be protected.
>
> If AT&T, AOL, Google or another elite company moves its offices, and
> happens to not update their WHOIS records for a few weeks, should they
> lose *all* of their domains? Obviously not...they have the lawyers (and
> trademarks) to ensure that they'd get back any domain name that their
> registrar deletes, but smaller companies do not!
>
> Every summer, a lot of people move to new homes or apartments -- should
> they all be rushing to change their WHOIS the exact moment they move,
> or fear losing all their domain names?
>
> Sincerely,
>
> George Kirikos
> http://www.kirikos.com/

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 7 Jan 2003 10:41:53 -0500
From: "Derek J. Balling" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Re: WHOIS accuracy, and name deletions

A couple other thoughts, from someone interested in this topic:

Hold after 15d. Delete 90d after held. If the domain isn't working for 
a month, and the domainholder hasn't contacted anyone to get it 
resolved, and is unreachable, I don't see a need to hang on to the 
domain much longer when others might actually be "responsible" 
landlords of the domain. :)

On Tuesday, January 7, 2003, at 09:03  AM, ezgoing wrote:

> I agree that 15 days is not reasonable.
>
> I believe that the policy of Verisign and other Registrars not 
> releasing
> expired domains is more of a problem than the Whois information not 
> being
> accurate.  Why hasn't anything ever been done about this problem?
>
> It would be nice if it was accurate but it should require a registered
> letter before the domain could be deleted.  Place it on hold after 15 
> days,
> delete after three months if there is no response to a registered 
> letter.
>
> Ed
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "George Kirikos" <[email-masked]>
> To: <[email-masked]>
> Cc: <[email-masked]>
> Sent: Tuesday, January 07, 2003 4:15 AM
> Subject: WHOIS accuracy, and name deletions
>
>
>> Hello,
>>
>> Folks might not be aware of discussions going on in the WHOIS accuracy
>> task force of the DNSO/GNSO. See:
>>
>> http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/nc-whois/Arc00/msg00806.html
>>
>> for instance.
>>
>> Am I the only one who is concerned that a legitimately held name might
>> be deleted due to a simple failure to respond within 15 days? Given 
>> the
>> amount of spam out there (it's easy to accidentally skip over an 
>> email,
>> thinking it was spam), and lack of guaranteed delivery of email, I
>> think that this is a very dangerous and poorly thought-out proposal 
>> for
>> legitimate domain holders, especially those with small staffs (or
>> self-employed). I am all for WHOIS accuracy (it helps to promote
>> responsible internet usage, and reduce abuse behaviour), but there
>> needs to be some balance in that proposal. If someone goes on holidays
>> for 3 weeks, or misses an email, conceivably they could find all their
>> valuable domains are no longer held by them!
>>
>> I would hope that OpenSRS and other leading registrars would implement
>> a "white-list" (where domain WHOIS is permanently marked as 
>> "accurate",
>> or if not permanent than for long intervals of months, not days) of
>> protected names, or other mechanisms to ensure that legitimate and
>> correct domains are not hijacked through misuse of this policy, and
>> that domains are protected. "Rogue" domain holders, with obviously 
>> fake
>> WHOIS should be pursued, but legitimate holders should be protected.
>>
>> If AT&T, AOL, Google or another elite company moves its offices, and
>> happens to not update their WHOIS records for a few weeks, should they
>> lose *all* of their domains? Obviously not...they have the lawyers 
>> (and
>> trademarks) to ensure that they'd get back any domain name that their
>> registrar deletes, but smaller companies do not!
>>
>> Every summer, a lot of people move to new homes or apartments -- 
>> should
>> they all be rushing to change their WHOIS the exact moment they move,
>> or fear losing all their domain names?
>>
>> Sincerely,
>>
>> George Kirikos
>> http://www.kirikos.com/
>

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 07 Jan 2003 14:20:11 -0800
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] WHOIS comments archive -- not updating? or a Ruse?

George and all,

  Your right, the [email-masked] "Black Hole" ML for
such comments doesn't seem to be working even after Thomas
sent a note to this now unofficial former DNSO GA Forum.
See: http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc11/msg01469.html

Is this yet another of the NC's/ICANN's or the BC/IPC's
ruse's?

  Seems as almost as though the NC, ICANN and the now so called
GNSO TF Whois is not interested in public comments on issues
that are of direct concern to registrants...  ???  I wonder why?

  BTW I also sent in comments some in December that also do
not appear to be in the archives for  [email-masked].

George Kirikos wrote:

> According to:
>
> http://www.dnso.org/dnso/dnsocomments/comments-whois/Arc00/
>
> there have been no comments received since August? (I sent in a comment
> a few minutes ago, and it doesn't appear)
>
> Is there another archive/link which is up to date, or is that
> mailinglist-to-web utility broken again?
>
> Sincerely,
>
> George Kirikos
> http://www.kirikos.com/
> --
> This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

Regards,

- --
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman for INEGroup - (Over 127k members/stakeholders strong!)
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail [email-masked]
Contact Number: 214-244-4827 or 972-244-3801
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 07 Jan 2003 14:28:41 -0800
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Re: WHOIS accuracy, and name deletions

Derek and all,

  Derek your point is well taken in many respects I am sure.  However
how do you reconcile your thought with the fact that many Domain Names
are not used for Web Sites or are restricted use via DNSEC?

Derek J. Balling wrote:

> A couple other thoughts, from someone interested in this topic:
>
> Hold after 15d. Delete 90d after held. If the domain isn't working for
> a month, and the domainholder hasn't contacted anyone to get it
> resolved, and is unreachable, I don't see a need to hang on to the
> domain much longer when others might actually be "responsible"
> landlords of the domain. :)
>
> On Tuesday, January 7, 2003, at 09:03  AM, ezgoing wrote:
>
> > I agree that 15 days is not reasonable.
> >
> > I believe that the policy of Verisign and other Registrars not
> > releasing
> > expired domains is more of a problem than the Whois information not
> > being
> > accurate.  Why hasn't anything ever been done about this problem?
> >
> > It would be nice if it was accurate but it should require a registered
> > letter before the domain could be deleted.  Place it on hold after 15
> > days,
> > delete after three months if there is no response to a registered
> > letter.
> >
> > Ed
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "George Kirikos" <[email-masked]>
> > To: <[email-masked]>
> > Cc: <[email-masked]>
> > Sent: Tuesday, January 07, 2003 4:15 AM
> > Subject: WHOIS accuracy, and name deletions
> >
> >
> >> Hello,
> >>
> >> Folks might not be aware of discussions going on in the WHOIS accuracy
> >> task force of the DNSO/GNSO. See:
> >>
> >> http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/nc-whois/Arc00/msg00806.html
> >>
> >> for instance.
> >>
> >> Am I the only one who is concerned that a legitimately held name might
> >> be deleted due to a simple failure to respond within 15 days? Given
> >> the
> >> amount of spam out there (it's easy to accidentally skip over an
> >> email,
> >> thinking it was spam), and lack of guaranteed delivery of email, I
> >> think that this is a very dangerous and poorly thought-out proposal
> >> for
> >> legitimate domain holders, especially those with small staffs (or
> >> self-employed). I am all for WHOIS accuracy (it helps to promote
> >> responsible internet usage, and reduce abuse behaviour), but there
> >> needs to be some balance in that proposal. If someone goes on holidays
> >> for 3 weeks, or misses an email, conceivably they could find all their
> >> valuable domains are no longer held by them!
> >>
> >> I would hope that OpenSRS and other leading registrars would implement
> >> a "white-list" (where domain WHOIS is permanently marked as
> >> "accurate",
> >> or if not permanent than for long intervals of months, not days) of
> >> protected names, or other mechanisms to ensure that legitimate and
> >> correct domains are not hijacked through misuse of this policy, and
> >> that domains are protected. "Rogue" domain holders, with obviously
> >> fake
> >> WHOIS should be pursued, but legitimate holders should be protected.
> >>
> >> If AT&T, AOL, Google or another elite company moves its offices, and
> >> happens to not update their WHOIS records for a few weeks, should they
> >> lose *all* of their domains? Obviously not...they have the lawyers
> >> (and
> >> trademarks) to ensure that they'd get back any domain name that their
> >> registrar deletes, but smaller companies do not!
> >>
> >> Every summer, a lot of people move to new homes or apartments --
> >> should
> >> they all be rushing to change their WHOIS the exact moment they move,
> >> or fear losing all their domain names?
> >>
> >> Sincerely,
> >>
> >> George Kirikos
> >> http://www.kirikos.com/
> >
>
> --
> This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

Regards,
- --
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman for INEGroup - (Over 127k members/stakeholders strong!)
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail [email-masked]
Contact Number: 214-244-4827 or 972-244-3801
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 7 Jan 2003 12:40:54 -0800 (PST)
From: George Kirikos <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] WHOIS comments archive -- not updating? or a Ruse?

Hello,

- --- Jeff Williams <[email-masked]> wrote:
>   Your right, the [email-masked] "Black Hole" ML for
> such comments doesn't seem to be working even after Thomas

It turns out that they are in a separate archive, at:

http://www.dnso.org/dnso/dnsocomments/comments-whois/Arc02/

Sincerely,

George Kirikos
http://www.kirikos.com/
- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 07 Jan 2003 14:58:38 -0800
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Why is this survey not being propagated? Note: this is the second time this request/question has been ask..

All former DNSO GA members or other interested parties,

  Why is this:
http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/nc-udrp/Arc00/doc00045.doc
not being propagated so that those to whom it may effect be able to
adequately respond?  Whom on the so called GNSO [email-masked]
UDRP TF is responsible for doing so, if anyone?  If no one is
responsible
than what is the purpose?  Is there no UDRP task force member that
is a responsible person?  What is the story here people?!  :(

Regretful regards,

- --
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman for INEGroup - (Over 127k members/stakeholders strong!)
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail [email-masked]
Contact Number: 214-244-4827 or 972-244-3801
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 07 Jan 2003 16:10:00 -0800
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] WHOIS comments archive -- not updating? or a Ruse?

Geroge and all Former DNSO GA members,

  Nope.  This archive that you listed is also incomplete as well...

George Kirikos wrote:

> Hello,
>
> --- Jeff Williams <[email-masked]> wrote:
> >   Your right, the [email-masked] "Black Hole" ML for
> > such comments doesn't seem to be working even after Thomas
>
> It turns out that they are in a separate archive, at:
>
> http://www.dnso.org/dnso/dnsocomments/comments-whois/Arc02/
>
> Sincerely,
>
> George Kirikos
> http://www.kirikos.com/
> --
> This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

Regards,
- --
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman for INEGroup - (Over 127k members/stakeholders strong!)
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail [email-masked]
Contact Number: 214-244-4827 or 972-244-3801
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 7 Jan 2003 19:41:55 -0500
From: "Cade,Marilyn S - LGA" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] WHOIS comments archive -- not updating? or a Ruse?

Jeff, George,

I have copied the DNSO Secretariat, who maintains the lists. As you are 
aware, all web site and listserv administrative support to the NC TF's is provided by the DNSO secretariat. 

Complaints regarding the archives, or missing postings should be sent to the DNSO Secretariat, so that she can correct the archives as appropriate.

Thank you for calling this to my attention, but again, corrections to the archives have to be sent to the secretariat so that it can be rectified.

Marilyn Cade

- -----Original Message-----
From: Jeff Williams [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Tuesday, January 07, 2003 7:10 PM
To: George Kirikos
Cc: [email-masked]; Cade,Marilyn S - LGA
Subject: Re: [ga] WHOIS comments archive -- not updating? or a Ruse?

Geroge and all Former DNSO GA members,

  Nope.  This archive that you listed is also incomplete as well...

George Kirikos wrote:

> Hello,
>
> --- Jeff Williams <[email-masked]> wrote:
> >   Your right, the [email-masked] "Black Hole" ML for
> > such comments doesn't seem to be working even after Thomas
>
> It turns out that they are in a separate archive, at:
>
> http://www.dnso.org/dnso/dnsocomments/comments-whois/Arc02/
>
> Sincerely,
>
> George Kirikos
> http://www.kirikos.com/
> --
> This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

Regards,
- --
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman for INEGroup - (Over 127k members/stakeholders strong!)
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail [email-masked]
Contact Number: 214-244-4827 or 972-244-3801
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 08 Jan 2003 13:58:13 +1300
From: Joop Teernstra <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] WHOIS accuracy, and name deletions

At 12:57 a.m. 8/01/2003, Thomas Roessler wrote:
>On 2003-01-07 02:15:01 -0800, George Kirikos wrote:
>
> > Folks might not be aware of discussions going on in the WHOIS
> > accuracy task force of the DNSO/GNSO. See:
>
> > http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/nc-whois/Arc00/msg00806.html
>
> > for instance.
>
> > Am I the only one who is concerned that a legitimately held name
> > might be deleted due to a simple failure to respond within 15
> > days?
>
>You're certainly not alone with that concern.  But the 15 day period
>isn't new at all -- it's current policy, RAA 3.7.7.2.

And that illustrates how necessary it is that Individual registrants are 
actively represented in the policy making process.
15 Days can easily result in oppression. There must be safeguards.

If targeting "bad guys" is the justification, we are in for a lot more 
"summary takedowns".

Such unchecked powers must not be given to commercial registrars.

- -joop-

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 7 Jan 2003 21:26:04 -0500
From: "Cade,Marilyn S - LGA" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] WHOIS accuracy, and name deletions

Okay, a few "facts" seem necessary.

The "fifteen day thing" is existing policy.  

The WHOIS TF RECOMMENDED studying it, assessing problems, etc. THEY/TASK FORCE didn't create or change it. They reflected input from individuals, ISPs, Business users AND registrars that thought more examination was needed before any change, either to shorten, or to lengthen. Two members recommended that ICANN staff have discretion to be lenient in their implementation of the 15 day... etc. The rest of the TF supported including those comments in the final report.

Let me defend the registrars. As co-chair, I saw the registrars in this discussion on time frames for notification, seek to provide maximum protections to their customers... that would be all kinds of registrants, individuals, among them. Joop's concern about commercial registrars has not been validated by the TF experience in the input or behavior of the commercial registrars. :-) 

here's my point.... participating in the comment process is very helpful AND can change the recommendations of the TF. Criticizing it is a "game". The list is open, AGAIN, for comment. Until 1/9. I suggest that you take the time to post to the list.  

If you get a rejection, post to [email-masked]. The secretariat can help you. 

For anyone who has asked me, as co chair, I've posted for them directly to the TF itself. Other TF members have done the same. 

- -----Original Message-----
From: Joop Teernstra [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Tuesday, January 07, 2003 7:58 PM
To: Thomas Roessler; George Kirikos
Cc: [email-masked]; [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [ga] WHOIS accuracy, and name deletions

At 12:57 a.m. 8/01/2003, Thomas Roessler wrote:
>On 2003-01-07 02:15:01 -0800, George Kirikos wrote:
>
> > Folks might not be aware of discussions going on in the WHOIS
> > accuracy task force of the DNSO/GNSO. See:
>
> > http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/nc-whois/Arc00/msg00806.html
>
> > for instance.
>
> > Am I the only one who is concerned that a legitimately held name
> > might be deleted due to a simple failure to respond within 15
> > days?
>
>You're certainly not alone with that concern.  But the 15 day period
>isn't new at all -- it's current policy, RAA 3.7.7.2.

And that illustrates how necessary it is that Individual registrants are 
actively represented in the policy making process.
15 Days can easily result in oppression. There must be safeguards.

If targeting "bad guys" is the justification, we are in for a lot more 
"summary takedowns".

Such unchecked powers must not be given to commercial registrars.

- -joop-

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 7 Jan 2003 22:08:29 -0500
From: "John Berryhill" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] WHOIS accuracy, and name deletions

>
> Am I the only one who is concerned that a legitimately held name might
> be deleted due to a simple failure to respond within 15 days?

NSI has had months to respond to the reports of fictitious addresses for
these domain names and has done nothing:

Registrant:
INTERNATIONAL HERBAL PHARMACEUTICALS CORP. (IHPHARM-DOM)
1 WORLD TRADE CENTER, SUITE 7803
NEW YORK
NY,10048
US

Domain Name: IHPHARM.COM

- --------

Registrant:
Ingress Enterprises, Inc. (INGRESS4-DOM)
1 World Trade Center Suite 8949
New York
NY,10048
US

Domain Name: INGRESS.COM

- -------
Registrant:
World Teleport Association (WORLDTELEPORT2-DOM)
2 World Trade Center Suite 2150
New York
NY,10048
US

Domain Name: WORLDTELEPORT.ORG

- -----

Surely 15 days was sufficient for these people to update their registration
data, according to the WHOIS TF.

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 08 Jan 2003 16:56:11 +1300
From: Joop Teernstra <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] WHOIS accuracy, and name deletions

At 03:26 p.m. 8/01/2003, Cade,Marilyn S - LGA wrote:
>Okay, a few "facts" seem necessary.
>
>
>The "fifteen day thing" is existing policy.
>
>The WHOIS TF RECOMMENDED studying it, assessing problems, etc. THEY/TASK 
>FORCE didn't create or change it.

Then who created it?

<snip>

 >Joop's concern about commercial registrars has not been validated by the 
TF experience >in the input or behavior of the commercial registrars. :-)

I do not understand what the smiley is for, Marilyn, unless it indicates 
that you yourself do not really believe that "so far no complaints" is a 
valid argument to dole out unchecked DN takedown powers to anyone.

- -joop-

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 7 Jan 2003 23:28:40 -0500
From: "Cade,Marilyn S - LGA" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] WHOIS accuracy, and name deletions

Joop, you are responding in a way which indicates that you don't want to have an interaction which can result in exchange between parties of good will. 

That was what the smiley is about. I believe that the registrars who commented in fact did so from the interest of protecting their registrants. Your earlier comments seemed [apologize if I misunderstood them] to say that commercial registrars didn't care. Point of my response was: no, not borne out by their comments. :-)

Not anything nefarious. Just a comment to convey information. Apologize if not clear.

As to the initial question: Who created the 15 day period.  That would have been incorporated in the initial contracts. It probably seemed reasonable at the time, and with email, should be ample. 

Let's try to be charitable and accept that experience is providing information which should be part of the input to any change. The TF is trying to focus on the latter. 

Validated input, with facts to back it up, are welcomed input. 

Marilyn

- -----Original Message-----
From: Joop Teernstra [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Tuesday, January 07, 2003 10:56 PM
To: Cade,Marilyn S - LGA; Thomas Roessler; George Kirikos
Cc: [email-masked]; [email-masked]
Subject: RE: [ga] WHOIS accuracy, and name deletions

At 03:26 p.m. 8/01/2003, Cade,Marilyn S - LGA wrote:
>Okay, a few "facts" seem necessary.
>
>
>The "fifteen day thing" is existing policy.
>
>The WHOIS TF RECOMMENDED studying it, assessing problems, etc. THEY/TASK 
>FORCE didn't create or change it.

Then who created it?

<snip>

 >Joop's concern about commercial registrars has not been validated by the 
TF experience >in the input or behavior of the commercial registrars. :-)

I do not understand what the smiley is for, Marilyn, unless it indicates 
that you yourself do not really believe that "so far no complaints" is a 
valid argument to dole out unchecked DN takedown powers to anyone.

- -joop-

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

End of GA-DIGEST V1 #1548
*************************