Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #1549
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST         Wednesday, January 8 2003         Volume 01 : Number 1549

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

Date: Wed, 8 Jan 2003 00:17:35 -0500
From: "Srikanth Narra" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] WHOIS accuracy, and name deletions

Deleting a domain because of inaccurate WHOIS record is not right. Someone
paid for it. If the registrar didn't have problem accepting the money - they
or someone else should not invent causes to delete it.

I can not comprehend and am yet to hear a single legitimate reason or
benefit that comes from a domain being deleted because of an inaccurate
WHOIS record. If its current policy then its wrong policy and should be
changed.

Even in (extreme) cases like say spamming or malicious virus attacks, etc.
from a domain with inaccurate WHOIS record. I don't see any reason for the
domain to be deleted. The domain marked be marked and left disabled.

Adding and displaying a few fields

a. Status - [Disabled]
b. Reason - [Spam /Court order?]
c. Whom to contact to Enable - [Registrar contact info]

along with/to WHOIS record should take care of providing concrete notice and
issues arising from trying to reach the registrant with no irreversible harm
done.

If the entity behind the domain is genuine - they will contact sooner or
later. Else the domain allowed to die its natural death in continued Disable
stage AFTER its time runs out. A check can be enforced at the time of
renewal for the MARKED domains to ensure the WHOIS record is right.

Between this and existing established law, procedure and channels to take
things to next step - I can not think of any issues that can not be handled.

An organization, society or a civilization is only

as robust as rights that exist within it for all parties and
as honorable as the fairness, the extent and the manner in which such rights
are enforced.

I am hoping there is still some sense of honor and some resemblance of
fairplay left.

Sri

- --
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 00:52:27 -0800
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] WHOIS comments archive -- not updating? or a Ruse?

Marilyn and all,

  Marilyn, these requests were made to the secretariat back in
Oct. '02 without correction.  As Thomas suggested and you acknowledged,
that the comment period which ends on the 9th of this month it seems
unlikely that the corrections for the at least two months of comments
and input sent to the [email-masked] "Black Hole" ML
will be rectified in time and the missing archives or posts
to [email-masked]  still have not been corrected
sense John Berryhill requested back on Oct. 17th.  As you and the
Whois TF members are responsible for taking in comments and input
it would be incumbent upon you and the NC chair to see to it
this problem is corrected and was corrected long before now
or as far back as Oct. 17th.

  This continuing sort of problem does not breed confidence in
the Whois Task Force's abilities, level of personal responsibility,
or professionalism to the registrants of whom have an interest.

  Missing posts to [email-masked] "Black Hole" ML
that I am aware of or seem to not be archived in the
thus far indicated archive URL's, and were separately also
sent to [email-masked] "Black Hole" ML
are as follows but not complete:
http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc11/msg00818.html
http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc11/msg00822.html
http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc11/msg00840.html
http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc11/msg00876.html
http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc11/msg00949.html

  Abrogating responsibility for such at this late date seems
only to tacitly indicate that a lack or professional conduct
 and real interest in stakeholder/registrant input is evident.

  Therefore Marilyn I have a 9 yr old daughter that can take
care of this matter if Thomas, Andrew, the secretariat, or any other
member of the Whois Task force is unable to handle this
task expeditiously if she may have a temporary password
by which she can log in to the server and make the necessary
and indicated needed corrections that are now long overdue.

  After all we would not want the Whois Task force members
to miss any input or make decisions for some millions of
Registrants in a vacuum, now would we?  >;)

Cade,Marilyn S - LGA wrote:

> 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

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 14:32:54 -0800
From: Robert L Mathews <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Re: WHOIS accuracy, and name deletions

At 1/7/03 10:03 AM, Derek J. Balling wrote:

>For the same reason it's always been a problem. People need to be able 
>to find and contact the domain-holder in the event of a problem, etc.

<opposing_opinion>

Since it's my traditional role to object to this opinion whenever it 
comes up on the OpenSRS list, I feel compelled to point out for the 
record that some of us strongly feel:

- - that it is not a problem;
- - that public WHOIS is an artifact of the pre-1993 Internet, where
  holding a domain was usually equivalent to running the various services
  for it and indicated some kind of commitment to the community;
- - that nowadays, people who hold domains are unlikely to run the services
  for them or feel responsible to the community -- or if they do run the
  services and there's a problem with that domain, they are probably the
  cause of that problem, so there's little point in complaining to them;
- - that contact data provided to registrars would be more accurate if it
  were reasonably private, because many otherwise innocent people provide
  inaccurate data simply for privacy reasons;
- - that anyone who is actually a "bad guy" is likely to provide bad data
  anyway, and that if the policy changes to drop domains with obviously
  invalid WHOIS data like "Mickey Mouse", it's trivially easy to start
  providing false data that doesn't appear blatantly bad;
- - that when my customers first become aware of the fact that their
  information is publicly available, almost all of them are appalled,
  and a few have even canceled their registrations as a result (in one
  extreme case, a customer was a witness to a murder who had kept his
  address secret for years for fear of retaliation, then happened to find
  it was available to anyone with a Web browser after registering his
  domain name);
- - that since the gross privacy violations of public WHOIS far outweigh
  the benefits, public WHOIS should therefore be completely abolished,
  with WHOIS data available only to people who actually need it
  (registrars, law enforcement, etc.), much like driver's license
  records are now only available to insurance companies, law enforcement,
  and so forth.

I can't be bothered to argue the reasons in more detail yet again; see my 
past OpenSRS discuss-list posts on this subject in the unlikely event 
anyone is interested.

</opposing_opinion>

- --
Robert L Mathews, Tiger Technologies

"A professional in an ape mask is still a professional." -Marge Simpson

- --
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 22:19:59 +1300
From: DPF <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] WHOIS accuracy, and name deletions

On Wed, 8 Jan 2003 00:17:35 -0500, "Srikanth Narra"
<[email-masked]> wrote:

>Deleting a domain because of inaccurate WHOIS record is not right. Someone
>paid for it. If the registrar didn't have problem accepting the money - they
>or someone else should not invent causes to delete it.
>
>I can not comprehend and am yet to hear a single legitimate reason or
>benefit that comes from a domain being deleted because of an inaccurate
>WHOIS record. If its current policy then its wrong policy and should be
>changed.
>
>Even in (extreme) cases like say spamming or malicious virus attacks, etc.
>from a domain with inaccurate WHOIS record. I don't see any reason for the
>domain to be deleted. The domain marked be marked and left disabled.

There does seem a simple solution here.  If whois details are found to
be inaccurate the domain is removed from the zone file, but remains
registered to the registrant for the term paid for.

If the registrant is a legitimate user, then once their domain stops
working they will eventually contact the registrar to get it fixed.
If the registrant is bogus, a spammer etc, then they will not want to
make contact and their domain will be unusable until they supply
correct details.

This way domains with fake whois details become unusable, but it
doesn't allow people to "steal" domains just because someone is
overseas or doesn't update their contact details.

DPF
- --
E-mail: [email-masked]
ICQ:    29964527
MSN:    [email-masked]
- --
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 12:02:00 +0100
From: Vittorio Bertola <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] WHOIS accuracy, and name deletions

On Tue, 7 Jan 2003 02:15:01 -0800 (PST), you wrote:

>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? 

No, absolutely. FYI, this is the comment I've sent on December 30 to
the task force.

=====
Dear WHOIS task force,

Please find my comments about your final report on "Accuracy and Bulk
Access".

Accuracy of data in WHOIS databases is desirable, but it must be noted
that in real life some degree of inaccuracy is unavoidable, due to a
number of reasons, such as:

a) the complex and burdensome procedures that many registries,
especially in ccTLDs, require users to follow to update their details;
in many countries, updating name server or contact details requires
written applications and/or the intervention (sometimes at a fee) of
the registrar, and it may take several days, if not weeks.

b) the fact that minor or major alterations of contact data are
presently in most registries the only instrument a registrant can use
to protect his/her own personal data from being published and visible
to the whole world, and used (as it usually happens) for spamming
purposes, or for personal harassment by badly intentioned third
parties.

c) the fact that disclosing your identity as the owner of domain names
used for politically or socially sensitive services, especially in
some parts of the world, might put your life or your career at risk.

d) the usual complexity of the world: for example, whenever you move
your home you have to do a million things, and there's nothing
particularly wrong in forgetting to do the million-and-first - ie
updating the contact address for your domain name.

Thus, automatically connecting inaccurate data, even if voluntarily
provided, with a fraudulent intent or unlawful behaviour is not per se
acceptable. 

Until reasonable instruments can be provided for personal data to be
protected from general public access and reserved to the knowledge of
the registry/registrar, law enforcement agencies, and other selected
and authorized parties, there is a huge incentive to supply incorrect
or useless contact data when registering domains, especially for
individuals.

Moreover, as individual and especially business users invest money and
time in promoting the value of their domain names and/or use them
every day for valuable business and personal communication, it should
be ensured that in no case a valid registration will be removed or put
on hold only due to unwilful or minor inaccuracies in registration
data, and without adequate attempts to contact the registrant and give
him/her enough time to correct the problems.

Under this light, a period of 15 days for corrections to be made is
completely inadequate to the purpose.

When a complaint about the validity of registrant data is made,
registries/registrars should be required to:
- - contact the registrant via e-mail at the presently registered
contact details, at least twice;
- - if such attempts fail to get any answer, to try to use other
reasonable e-mail addresses, such as the RFC822-mandated
"postmaster@domain" address, or other quasi-standard e-mail addresses
(such as hostmaster@domain and webmaster@domain), or any e-mail
addresses that might be immediately found from a website at the URL
www.domain;
- - if all attempts by e-mail fail to get answer after reasonable time
for e-mail communication (for example, 10 business days in the
registrant's country) an attempt via telephone should be made, at
least twice in two different days, during business hours in the
registrant's country;
- - if this fails, an attempt using the standard postal service should
be made; in this case, at least 30 calendar days should be allowed for
the letter to be delivered and processed.

For these reasons, I think that ICANN should:

- - adopt a contact verification process made in steps, allowing for at
least 45 days from the beginning to the end, and ensuring that a
significant number of attempts to communicate with the registrant,
using different instruments, is made prior to any domain cancellation
or holding to be allowed;

- - foster the creation of simple instruments where each registrant (at
least for gTLDs) may edit his/her own details in the registry and
registrar databases; this might be simplified by increased uniformity
and by the adoption of technical protocols for data exchange and
synchronization, or for data referral, between different WHOIS
databases;

- - suggest (and later, mandate, as required by law in many countries)
registries and registrars to allow registrants not to be included by
default in the WHOIS service databases, but to opt-in into it (except
for their name and an e-mail contact address, which should be usually
available through WHOIS);

- - allow for a number of cases where the registrant may choose even for
his/her own name and e-mail address not to be disclosed to anyone but
law enforcement agencies.

I also note that the WHOIS service as currently implemented by most
registries is clearly illegal in a number of countries, including the
European Union. Putting excessive stress on the need of keeping
accurate data collected through systems of doubtful lawfulness, while
not solving the other side of the problem (privacy protection), could
once more damage ICANN's credibility in a number of online
environments, or give way to unnecessary litigations and discussions.
- -- 
vb.            [Vittorio Bertola - v.bertola [a] bertola.eu.org]<---
- -------------------> http://bertola.eu.org/ <-----------------------
- --
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 12:14:29 +0100
From: Vittorio Bertola <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] WHOIS accuracy, and name deletions

On Tue, 7 Jan 2003 23:28:40 -0500, you wrote:

>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. 

Knowing Joop, this might sometimes be true :-) and it's also true that
the 15 days provision is already policy, but nevertheless I think
that, for the same good will, the task force should recognize the
ample concern in the registrant community about enforcing that
timeframe in a hard way.

Note that I'm not talking just about individual registrants - the
company I used to work for had its .co.uk domain name put on hold
without notice because we had no way of checking or updating our
contact data, and they had no way of contacting us because the contact
data were out of date (well, e-mail was ok, but apparently they didn't
bother to use it - they just used the postal address to send the
invoice, and when it bounced, they disconnected the domain). And for
an e-commerce company, even one day of downtime might cause
million-dollar damages. (BTW, if I was a company whose domain is put
on hold due to WHOIS inaccuracies, I wouldn't wait a minute to sue my
registrar.)

More generally speaking, it's just a matter of ICANN choosing where it
wants to stand. If it wants to play the market regulator, it has to
stand half way between all parties. If it chooses positions that bring
advantage to some parties but are unreasonable and unacceptable to
many others, it simply (as it has happened in the past years) will
lose its role and credibility more and more. I think that all of us
who still accept to play a part in ICANN policy-making processes
should keep this concept well in mind.
- -- 
vb.            [Vittorio Bertola - v.bertola [a] bertola.eu.org]<---
- -------------------> http://bertola.eu.org/ <-----------------------
- --
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 12:15:40 +0100
From: Vittorio Bertola <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] WHOIS accuracy, and name deletions

On Wed, 08 Jan 2003 22:19:59 +1300, you wrote:

>If the registrant is a legitimate user, then once their domain stops
>working they will eventually contact the registrar to get it fixed.

The problem is that it might be too late - you might already be losing
valuable e-mail messages or website traffic. So even before putting
the domain on hold all efforts have to be made to contact the
registrant and fix the problem (and let alone the fact that one has
the right not to expose his/her identity to the whole world).
- -- 
vb.            [Vittorio Bertola - v.bertola [a] bertola.eu.org]<---
- -------------------> http://bertola.eu.org/ <-----------------------
- --
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, 8 Jan 2003 13:24:34 +0100 (CET)
From: Marc Schneiders <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] WHOIS accuracy, and name deletions

I very much agree with the position outlined below. I would rather have a
voluntary WHOIS (meaning you can be in there with the data you want,
except perhaps some bare minimum for TECHNICAL contact, say email
address), but I guess the power of the Intellectual Property People is too
big to achieve that. So let's make it easy then for all of us. And fair.

On Wed, 8 Jan 2003, at 00:17 [=GMT-0500], Srikanth Narra wrote:

> Deleting a domain because of inaccurate WHOIS record is not right. Someone
> paid for it. If the registrar didn't have problem accepting the money - they
> or someone else should not invent causes to delete it.
>
> I can not comprehend and am yet to hear a single legitimate reason or
> benefit that comes from a domain being deleted because of an inaccurate
> WHOIS record. If its current policy then its wrong policy and should be
> changed.
>
> Even in (extreme) cases like say spamming or malicious virus attacks, etc.
> from a domain with inaccurate WHOIS record. I don't see any reason for the
> domain to be deleted. The domain marked be marked and left disabled.
>
> Adding and displaying a few fields
>
> a. Status - [Disabled]
> b. Reason - [Spam /Court order?]
> c. Whom to contact to Enable - [Registrar contact info]
>
> along with/to WHOIS record should take care of providing concrete notice and
> issues arising from trying to reach the registrant with no irreversible harm
> done.
>
> If the entity behind the domain is genuine - they will contact sooner or
> later. Else the domain allowed to die its natural death in continued Disable
> stage AFTER its time runs out. A check can be enforced at the time of
> renewal for the MARKED domains to ensure the WHOIS record is right.
>
> Between this and existing established law, procedure and channels to take
> things to next step - I can not think of any issues that can not be handled.
>
> An organization, society or a civilization is only
>
> as robust as rights that exist within it for all parties and
> as honorable as the fairness, the extent and the manner in which such rights
> are enforced.
>
> I am hoping there is still some sense of honor and some resemblance of
> fairplay left.
>
> Sri
>
>
> --
> 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: Wed, 8 Jan 2003 13:37:48 +0100 (CET)
From: Marc Schneiders <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Re: WHOIS accuracy, and name deletions

On Tue, 7 Jan 2003, at 13:03 [=GMT-0500], Derek J. Balling wrote:
> On Tuesday, January 7, 2003, at 11:55  AM, ezgoing wrote:

> > So why is the problem so great just because the Whois information is
> > wrong?
>
> For the same reason it's always been a problem. People need to be able
> to find and contact the domain-holder in the event of a problem, etc.

> Please
> give details. :)

Please give details about what you are thinking of saying "in the event of
a problem, etc.". What problems etc. can only be solved by having ALL of
the following data for a domain:

name
address
phone number
email

Please give also details of who should solve each of the categories of the
problems etc. that you enumerate, and should therefore have access to the
whois data. And what whois data do they need?

- --
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, 8 Jan 2003 13:27:41 -0000
From: "Abel Wisman" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] RE: WHOIS accuracy, and name deletions

Considering the fact that you would hardly ever be accidentally sending
mailboms, that is not a very valid point.
Furthermore, only the person running the mailserver can do "anything"
about that, whether you like it or not.
Therefore the knowledge of your homeaddress and phonenumber are
irrelevant.

I furthermore state that there are many reasons why your county clerk
example does not hold any validity either, the least one being that such
records are limited and that you can not simply request all landowners
of the state of New York for free should you so desire, let allone the
whole of the USA and the whois database has more entries then the USA
has citizens.

Privacy however is the main reason why it should not be "public" and any
analogy with "brick & mortar" life as for access-rights should imo
definitely be made. After all IP constituencies can not simply access
all data there and have no reason of law-enforcement to access that
data. It has been long established that such cases in the "brick &
mortar" world need more then just opening up a database, there is no
reason to change that on the internet.

Privacy laws in several countries (most of the EU f.i.) and also in the
USA (Ca) are becoming more and more aware of this problem and are
getting more and more restrictive (thank whoever).

There is not 1 valid reason why "every Tom Dick & Harry" should have
access to your personal details such as your restricted phonenumber and
home address, you can try, but until today noone has succeeded in
finding one.

The argument that "in the USA we...whatever" holds no credit either
since the internet is a lot more then just the USA.

Whois was never meant to be used as it is today, and the problems
arising from that current usage are far bigger then most realize, Spam
being just a very small proportion of it.

I for one offer my clients registration in my name to protect their
data, for free.

With kind regards

Abel Wisman

===========================

Information in this electronic mail message is confidential and may be
privileged.

It is intended solely for the addressee. Access to this message by
anyone else is unauthorised. If you are not the intended recipient any
use, disclosure, copying, or distribution of this message is prohibited
and may be unlawful.

Any attachment has been checked for viruses, but please rely on your own
virus checker and procedures.

If you contact us by email we will store your name and address to
facilitate communications. 

=========================

Able Towers and Able Consultancy are tradenames of Moordata Ltd.

2 Brickett Close 
Ruislip
Middlesex
HA4 7YE 
UK
+44 1895 635413
+44 77 55255598

www.able-towers.com
www.url.org

best co-lo rates in the UK

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email-masked] 
> [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Derek J. Balling
> Sent: 08 January 2003 12:06
> To: [email-masked]; [email-masked]
> Subject: Re: WHOIS accuracy, and name deletions
> 
> 
> 
> On Tuesday, January 7, 2003, at 05:32  PM, Robert L Mathews wrote:
> > - that nowadays, people who hold domains are unlikely to run the
> > services
> >   for them or feel responsible to the community -- or if 
> they do run 
> > the
> >   services and there's a problem with that domain, they are 
> probably 
> > the
> >   cause of that problem, so there's little point in complaining to 
> > them;
> 
> Errr, I'm not sure I understand the logic of this argument. If "I" as 
> the domain-holder am the cause of an accidental mailbomb, why 
> SHOULDN'T 
> $victim have easy access to my contact info so that I can get it 
> corrected on my end?
> 
> > - that anyone who is actually a "bad guy" is likely to 
> provide bad data
> >   anyway, and that if the policy changes to drop domains 
> with obviously
> >   invalid WHOIS data like "Mickey Mouse", it's trivially 
> easy to start
> >   providing false data that doesn't appear blatantly bad;
> 
> True. But I don't think that makes "accurate data" any less a "best 
> practice".
> 
> > - that when my customers first become aware of the fact that their
> >   information is publicly available, almost all of them are 
> appalled,
> >   and a few have even canceled their registrations as a 
> result (in one
> >   extreme case, a customer was a witness to a murder who 
> had kept his
> >   address secret for years for fear of retaliation, then happened to
> > find
> >   it was available to anyone with a Web browser after 
> registering his
> >   domain name);
> 
> Provide this as a service to your users. Register the domains in your 
> name, etc. etc. I think someone on this list even offers this type of 
> service in a "generic" sense, if I remember correctly from the last 
> time this thread came up. :)
> 
> > - that since the gross privacy violations of public WHOIS 
> far outweigh
> >   the benefits, public WHOIS should therefore be completely 
> abolished,
> >   with WHOIS data available only to people who actually need it
> >   (registrars, law enforcement, etc.), much like driver's license
> >   records are now only available to insurance companies, law
> > enforcement,
> >   and so forth.
> 
> It's not a privacy violation if you have no expectation of 
> privacy. Use 
> of a domain is the same to my mind as the ownership of land. 
> Just like 
> I can walk into the county clerk's office and pull the land-ownership 
> records for a parcel of land, I see nothing functionally different 
> between that and "pulling the virtual land-ownership record of the 
> domain next door".
> 
> Before you make the "ease of access" argument, remember that many 
> town/county clerks are putting their data online, and it's only a 
> matter of time before most/all of that data is available as easily as 
> WHOIS data is.
> 
> I'm not going to dispute that there are varying opinions on 
> this, so I 
> don't want Robert to think I'm picking on him or anything, 
> but just as 
> there are counter-arguments to the points I've made, there are also 
> counter-arguments to some of his. ;-)
> 
> D
> 

- --
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, 8 Jan 2003 08:55:10 -0600
From: "Rodrigo  Orenday Serrato" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] WHOIS accuracy, and name deletions

15 days seems more than fair a period prior deletion.

I don't know how it is elsewhere, but in Mexico one has 9 working days to
reply to a law suit, period after which you would find yourself in default
should you fail to reply; in the case of suits for Amparo (sort of our
habeas corpus, but much broader), we have the exact same 15 days, tops, in
order to file a suit.

Atentamente, Regards
Rodrigo Orenday Serratos

- -----Mensaje original-----
De: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]En nombre de Joop
Teernstra
Enviado el: Martes, 07 de Enero de 2003 06:58 PM
Para: Thomas Roessler; George Kirikos
CC: [email-masked]; [email-masked]
Asunto: 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: Wed, 8 Jan 2003 09:05:38 -0600
From: "Rodrigo  Orenday Serrato" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] WHOIS accuracy, and name deletions

I would advise you to read WIPO's final report for its first process on
domain names; allowing for domain names to be registered anonymously or
through the purveyence of false details for contacts fosters cybersquatting
and other such conducts. Your arguments are outdated.

On the other hand, it's a basic principle of administrative law that you
should forfeit the rights derived from a registration issued by an authority
if you willfully provide false information in your application for said
registration. I beleive that this should also be applicable to the
registration of domain names and therefore agree with the measure.

Furthermore, and just to add a little folklore to this discussion, in Mexico
we have a saying that goes like this "El que tenga tienda, que la atienda",
which would translate something like "If you have a business, you should
tend to it". Domain name contacts should timely tend to their domains and
make sure that their details remain updated. Even if you're away on holiday,
staying in touch is not that hard anymore.

Atentamente, Regards
Rodrigo Orenday Serratos

- -----Mensaje original-----
De: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]En nombre de Srikanth
Narra
Enviado el: Martes, 07 de Enero de 2003 11:18 PM
Para: Cade,Marilyn S - LGA; [email-masked]
CC: [email-masked]; [email-masked]
Asunto: [ga] WHOIS accuracy, and name deletions

Deleting a domain because of inaccurate WHOIS record is not right. Someone
paid for it. If the registrar didn't have problem accepting the money - they
or someone else should not invent causes to delete it.

I can not comprehend and am yet to hear a single legitimate reason or
benefit that comes from a domain being deleted because of an inaccurate
WHOIS record. If its current policy then its wrong policy and should be
changed.

Even in (extreme) cases like say spamming or malicious virus attacks, etc.
from a domain with inaccurate WHOIS record. I don't see any reason for the
domain to be deleted. The domain marked be marked and left disabled.

Adding and displaying a few fields

a. Status - [Disabled]
b. Reason - [Spam /Court order?]
c. Whom to contact to Enable - [Registrar contact info]

along with/to WHOIS record should take care of providing concrete notice and
issues arising from trying to reach the registrant with no irreversible harm
done.

If the entity behind the domain is genuine - they will contact sooner or
later. Else the domain allowed to die its natural death in continued Disable
stage AFTER its time runs out. A check can be enforced at the time of
renewal for the MARKED domains to ensure the WHOIS record is right.

Between this and existing established law, procedure and channels to take
things to next step - I can not think of any issues that can not be handled.

An organization, society or a civilization is only

as robust as rights that exist within it for all parties and
as honorable as the fairness, the extent and the manner in which such rights
are enforced.

I am hoping there is still some sense of honor and some resemblance of
fairplay left.

Sri

- --
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: Wed, 08 Jan 2003 11:22:10 -0500
From: Dan Steinberg <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] WHOIS accuracy, and name deletions

Ummmmmmm Im confused here..
Just what substantive authority does WIPO's final report for its first 
process actually have?
I fail to see how something someone wrote....that has no force of 
law...makes someone elses arguements oudated.
Can you explain?

Rodrigo Orenday Serrato wrote:

>I would advise you to read WIPO's final report for its first process on
>domain names; allowing for domain names to be registered anonymously or
>through the purveyence of false details for contacts fosters cybersquatting
>and other such conducts. Your arguments are outdated.
>
>On the other hand, it's a basic principle of administrative law that you
>should forfeit the rights derived from a registration issued by an authority
>if you willfully provide false information in your application for said
>registration. I beleive that this should also be applicable to the
>registration of domain names and therefore agree with the measure.
>
>Furthermore, and just to add a little folklore to this discussion, in Mexico
>we have a saying that goes like this "El que tenga tienda, que la atienda",
>which would translate something like "If you have a business, you should
>tend to it". Domain name contacts should timely tend to their domains and
>make sure that their details remain updated. Even if you're away on holiday,
>staying in touch is not that hard anymore.
>
>Atentamente, Regards
>Rodrigo Orenday Serratos
>
>-----Mensaje original-----
>De: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]En nombre de Srikanth
>Narra
>Enviado el: Martes, 07 de Enero de 2003 11:18 PM
>Para: Cade,Marilyn S - LGA; [email-masked]
>CC: [email-masked]; [email-masked]
>Asunto: [ga] WHOIS accuracy, and name deletions
>
>
>Deleting a domain because of inaccurate WHOIS record is not right. Someone
>paid for it. If the registrar didn't have problem accepting the money - they
>or someone else should not invent causes to delete it.
>
>I can not comprehend and am yet to hear a single legitimate reason or
>benefit that comes from a domain being deleted because of an inaccurate
>WHOIS record. If its current policy then its wrong policy and should be
>changed.
>
>Even in (extreme) cases like say spamming or malicious virus attacks, etc.
>from a domain with inaccurate WHOIS record. I don't see any reason for the
>domain to be deleted. The domain marked be marked and left disabled.
>
>Adding and displaying a few fields
>
>a. Status - [Disabled]
>b. Reason - [Spam /Court order?]
>c. Whom to contact to Enable - [Registrar contact info]
>
>along with/to WHOIS record should take care of providing concrete notice and
>issues arising from trying to reach the registrant with no irreversible harm
>done.
>
>If the entity behind the domain is genuine - they will contact sooner or
>later. Else the domain allowed to die its natural death in continued Disable
>stage AFTER its time runs out. A check can be enforced at the time of
>renewal for the MARKED domains to ensure the WHOIS record is right.
>
>Between this and existing established law, procedure and channels to take
>things to next step - I can not think of any issues that can not be handled.
>
>An organization, society or a civilization is only
>
>as robust as rights that exist within it for all parties and
>as honorable as the fairness, the extent and the manner in which such rights
>are enforced.
>
>I am hoping there is still some sense of honor and some resemblance of
>fairplay left.
>
>Sri
>
>
>--
>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
>
>
>  
>

- -- 
Dan Steinberg

SYNTHESIS:Law & Technology
35, du Ravin		phone: (613) 794-5356
Chelsea, Quebec		fax:   (819) 827-4398
J9B 1N1                 e-mail:[email-masked]

- --
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 #1549
*************************