-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
How much more difficult must this get with multiple registries? Some
centralized point of reference is clearly necessary for each registry.
But then again, at the current rate, will we ever have that problem?
Gene Marsh
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Richard J. Sexton [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Monday, June 14, 1999 11:11 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: [IFWP] BOUNCE [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Non-member submission from
> [[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Ron Bennett)]
>
>
> >Return-Path: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >Date: Mon, 14 Jun 1999 22:30:44 -0400 (EDT)
> >To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >Subject: BOUNCE [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Non-member submission from
> [[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Ron Bennett)]
> >
> >>From ix.netcom.com!rb1000 Mon Jun 14 22:30:43 1999
> >Return-Path: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >Received: from dfw-ix12.ix.netcom.com([206.214.98.12]) (3769
> bytes) by ns1.vrx.net
> > via sendmail with P:esmtp/D:aliases/T:pipe
> > (sender: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>)
> > id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > for <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Mon, 14 Jun 1999 22:30:04 -0400 (EDT)
> > (Smail-3.2.0.100 1997-Dec-8 #2 built 1997-Dec-18)
> >Received: (from smap@localhost)
> > by dfw-ix12.ix.netcom.com (8.8.4/8.8.4)
> > id VAA17277; Mon, 14 Jun 1999 21:25:00 -0500 (CDT)
> >Message-Id: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >Received: from lspt-66ppp85.epix.net(199.224.66.85) by
> dfw-ix12.ix.netcom.com via smap (V1.3)
> > id rma017086; Mon Jun 14 21:23:58 1999
> >To: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >Date: Mon, 14 Jun 1999 22:36:06 -0400
> >Newsgroups:
> comp.protocols.tcp-ip.domains,alt.domain-names.registries,alt.
> censorship
> >Subject: Re: Register.com CHEATING Exposed!! Important please
read!!
> >From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Ron Bennett)
> >Organization: Netcom
> >X-Newsreader: WinVN 0.99.9 (Released Version) (x86 32bit)
> >References: <Mv%83.138$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> <7k4avt$a76$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >MIME-Version: 1.0
> >Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=US-ASCII
> >
> >Correct tits.com as listed at NSI is a contact record.
> >
> >On a related topic, in researching the TITS.COM domain name
> cheating issue it
> >appears that the Whois we're all used to is being split by
> registry. While that
> >may make sense to ICANN, that's going to cause much problems
> for the average
> >folk looking up the owner/contacts for a domain name record.
> It also could be a
> >precursor of a larger unintentional split within the DNS
> system if ICANN isn't
> >careful and upsets people.
> >
> >Right now if one wants to look up the owner of EXAMPLE.COM,
> one simply goes to
> >NSI's Whois and enter EXAMPLE.COM and the domain information
> is displayed.
> >
> >As more registars come on-line, things won't be as simple.
> Say a person inputs
> >lets say XYZ.COM registered at Register.com in NSI's
> Whois...it will say the
> >domain name is not available or display nothing or error
> out...none of these
> >results will help the person find the owner/contact
> information for the domain.
> >
> >In essance people will now have to perform two steps to look
> up a domain:
> >
> >1. Determine the registrar at nsiregistry.com
> >2. Query the appropriate Whois server
> >
> >First off many people won't understand this and secondly
> each registrar may
> >display different amounts of information on domains or
> simple none at all.
> >Hopefully others see the problem with such a setup!?
> >
> >Also these differences only reiterate that under the current
> incarnation of the
> >multiple registrar system, there exists an
> accountability/legal problem in
> >determining who owns and controls a domain. This is not a
> trivial matter and I
> >would strongly recommend ICANN review how registrar
> information is coordinated.
> >
> >The central registry (nsiregistry) *should* in my view
> contain ALL the records
> >for a domain record or at the minimum the legal OWNER of
> each domain and date
> >of registration that can be easily queried. Considering the
> value of domain
> >names, why would ICANN create a system where there's no
> central registry of
> >domain name owners?? That's crazy!! Or perhaps I
> misunderstand?...I hope!
> >
> >Ron Bennett
> >
> >
> >In article <7k4avt$a76$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED] says...
> >>
> >>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> >>>whois -h whois.internic.net !tc1485-org ...
> >>>TITS.COM (TC1485-ORG) [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >>> TITS.COM
> >>> Chelsea Bayou Traders, Box 1320
> >>> S-11479 STOCKHOLM, - -
> >>> SE
> >>> +49 89 66617 31409
> >>>
> >>> Record last updated on 26-Feb-99.
> >>> Database last updated on 14-Jun-99 08:07:54 EDT.
> >>
> >>Thats a contact record, not a domain record.
> >>
> >>Note the distinct lack of nameservers, admin, tech or billing
> >>contacts.
> >>
> >>--
> >>Richard Sexton [EMAIL PROTECTED] Bannockburn, Ontario, Canada
> >>70, 72 280SE; 83 300SD http://www.mbz.org
> >
> >
> --
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Remember, amateurs built the Ark. Professionals built the Titanic.
>
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGP Personal Privacy 6.0.2
iQA/AwUBN2Xw8nKYiraY8fZCEQKdpACg6A6t70BBbzojHE+i8o2Y01HN9l0AoKpj
bP3bvqyKEEHaq5dLEAbedZbf
=ox4I
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
