I'll snap my fingers in agreement with George and others. Would like to know what innacurate data is and what the specific procedure is to deal with it.
Deletion should be a very very last resort. regards, Swerve > From: George Kirikos <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Date: Tue, 15 Oct 2002 16:23:44 -0700 (PDT) > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: [ga] What Do They Mean By "Inaccurate Data" > > Hello, > > Great questions by John (I've taken the liberty of cc'ing this to the > OpenSRS mailing list, as I think they are very relevant to resellers). > > I would hope that OpenSRS and/or other registrars would make a > statement as to what constitutes inaccurate WHOIS data, and under what > conditions they'd delete a name that would appear to fail a "test". As > John says, just because one doesn't answer the phone for just anyone > (there are things like answering machines), or doesn't respond to every > crackpot's emails, doesn't mean that the contact data is invalid. > > Some form of annual verification, or something, to confirm that ALL of > one's domains are fine might be best, to not have to worry about losing > one's domains inadvertantly. Also, instead of just deleting a name > within 15 days, I think the name should go "on hold" or something, to > sort things out. Deletion should be a last resort. Folks DO go on > vacations, or have e-mail outages, so a one-time test of their email or > phone number that goes unanswered for a period doesn't mean that their > data is invalid. I bet that there are still a lot of invalid @home.com > email addresses in the WHOIS database, for instance. > > Security of our names is paramount, when we've made a huge investment > in acquiring and branding our domains. > > Sincerely, > > George Kirikos > http://www.kirikos.com/ > > > --- "John Berryhill Ph.D. J.D." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >> In briefly looking over the whois task force report, there is quite a >> bit of >> emphasis on "inaccurate" contact data, including a scale of graduated >> fines >> for "inaccurate" data maintained by registrars. >> >> I do not find anywhere in the document, a definition of "inaccurate" >> data, or >> who ultimately determines whether data is "inaccurate". It is >> amazing that >> any person of competence would draft a document revolving around a >> central >> concept, and never provide a definition of that concept. >> >> As a point of reference, I am currently defending a domain name >> registrant in >> a UDRP dispute, who has had a domain name corresponding to their >> corporate >> name since 1995, and which has an annual revenue from this >> corporation of >> several hundred thousands of dollars per year. The business is a >> software >> consultancy, let's call it XYZ Corp., which provides services on-site >> to >> corporate customers. The business operates out of an office in one >> of the >> homes of the principals of the corporation, and communicates >> primarily >> electronically with its clients, through its domain name XYZ.com. >> For >> telephone calls, they utilize a telephone which is listed to the wife >> of one >> of the principals (they appropriated her phone number for use in the >> family >> business). >> >> The main argument being advanced by the complainant is that the >> respondent >> has supplied "false" whois data. The complainant and its three >> Beverly Hills >> lawyers have submitted several pages of argument and affidavits which >> boil >> down to an assertion of "Because the telephone number is not listed >> by the >> phone company to XYZ Corp., then it is not the telephone number of >> XYZ Corp., >> therefore the contact data is false and the domain name is registered >> in bad >> faith." >> >> Now, I'm not an idiot, and I don't imagine for one red-hot minute >> that these >> people would hesitate to spend thousands of dollars to apply pressure >> to a >> registrar to cancel the domain name or else risk being fined on the >> same >> stupid and specious argument. >> >> So, my question is, when an idiot persists in making such an argument >> that >> contact data is "inaccurate", just what is the standard of "accuracy" >> to be >> applied, and who makes the final determination that it is inaccurate. >> The >> whois task force document addresses none of these questions, and it >> is clear >> to me that these questions will be of central importance in this >> whole >> "assertion of inaccuracy" and "documented proof of accuracy" >> business. It is >> a standardless standard. >> >> Also, please make it clear that these rules require the domain name >> registrant to have a working voice telephone number, and that having >> same is >> a requirement for registering a domain name. Does the telephone >> number need >> to be listed to the named registrant? Does the domain name >> registrant need >> to be the named party on bills for that number, or is it possible for >> one >> family member to register a domain name using a telephone number >> listed to >> another family member? Is it permissible for a home-based >> corporation to use >> a residential telephone number listed to a principal's wife as its >> telephone >> number? Or is that "inaccurate"? These are not joke questions, as >> this very >> issue has cost my clients hundreds of dollars to argue about. >> >> Does the registrant have to answer the telephone when it rings? I >> kid you >> not, I have been in other disputes where contact data was alleged to >> be >> "false" on the basis that the disputing party had called several >> times and >> had not gotten an answer. Ditto for domain name registrants who >> choose not >> to answer every item of email sent to them. >> >> There should be a procedure under which, once contact data has been >> confirmed >> as accurate, the domain name registrant will not subsequently be >> required to >> confirm the same contact data. It is as predictable as rain in >> September >> that registrants who manage multiple domain names will be subject to >> unremitting harassment, since there are no fines assessed against >> anyone who >> submits a "false contact data" inquiry. Such complaints can >> apparently be >> submitted for free and as often as one desires. Predictably, there >> are no >> burdens placed upon parties making complaints, only upon domain name >> registrants and their registrars. Even a nominal fee imposed on >> complainants for processing complaints would be an improvement. >> >> Ah, but once again, we see a proposed policy which has been drafted >> by those >> intent on making complaints, and not those who have to deal with the >> consequences of repetitive spurious complaints. In the minds of the >> complainers, all complaints have merit, and it is the job of the rest >> of the >> world to pay their way, thus providing another petty harassment tool >> to the >> less high-minded. >> >> Please explain where these issues are addressed in the interim >> report, as it >> is hard to believe that something as basic as a definition of >> "inaccurate" >> cannot be found therein. There is not even a definition of something >> as >> basic as "registrant name" and whether it includes nicknames, >> pen-names, >> latinized non-Roman script names, names of unincorporated businesses >> organizations such as partnerships etc. It is clear that lack of >> definitions >> will lead to endless disputes over "accuracy" when one attempts to >> apply ones >> personal and vague definition of 'accurate' upon a registration >> system that >> encompasses millions of entities from all parts of our planet. >> >> Regards, >> >> John Berryhill >> >> -- >> This message was passed to you via the [EMAIL PROTECTED] list. >> Send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] to unsubscribe >> ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message). >> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html >> > > > __________________________________________________ > Do you Yahoo!? > Faith Hill - Exclusive Performances, Videos & More > http://faith.yahoo.com
