I agree, deletion should be a very very last resort.
A very interesting post. I would have thought the vital wording is a 'CONTACT address/phone/email etc..' be it a PO Box, answering service, carrier pigeon or whatever. If the focus if shifted from 'inaccurate' to 'contact' then there is little room for manoeuvre. Being able to 'contact' is a fairly easily defined state, and a far quicker point to argue in law, even if undefined in the contract. It seems to me that arguing about accuracy would be the claimant's lawyers preference.. Particularly in a situation where the claimant has financial resources that will outlast the defendant in court. If I were advising the defendant in this situation I would have thought that a tactical concession of the point that 'accuracy' is arguable in the context of this contract and as such should be left to the best judgement of the learned court to define (- if not the definition used in common language) A very strong and considered return argument focusing on the word 'contact' would be the best move IMHO. Obviously it is far more interesting to debate 'accuracy' as an undefined state in a badly drawn contract, but in this case I would be buggered if I allowed my lawyers to spend time arguing it on my paid time, when I can show in court that I can be contacted on the phone number in the NIC record. Get out your mobile, phone the number, give a message to the wife, wife sends an SMS or phones husband. Ask the court if that constitutes a contact. David Dorey Xsession.Com Disclaimer : It wasn�t me. ---------- Original Message ---------------------------------- From: Swerve <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Tue, 15 Oct 2002 22:18:13 -0400 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 __________________________________________________ WebMail by Xsession.Com Limited http://www.xsession.com High quality solutions at sensible prices!
