Hi all , I also agree with Paul Rendek and Bertrand comments "it's not efficient having two separate databases would solve this issue" .
I also support Gaurab’s idea to tag the authoritative of account holder. Besides i would like to add one point with Gaurab's idea ;* Can we send verification message through mail to account holder's corporate and technical contact person by quarterly/half a year/yearly basis?* if one of the contact person is not verify this information then account accessibility will be disable . Other wise it's really hard to make more reliable and accurate whois database that we are thinking . *Regards / Jahangir * On Thu, May 19, 2016 at 6:23 AM, Bertrand Cherrier <[email protected] > wrote: > Greetings everyone, > > Many thanks to the APNIC Secretariat for this summary. > > Indeed the time was short at the latest Policy SIG meeting in Auckland for > every participant to have a voice, and we need to ear the members who could > not attend ! > > One thing we all agree on is the importance of having an accurate whois > contact information, and there is no perfect way to achieve this. > ARIN’s emailing policy and denying access to services to those marked as > invalid is a start, but should be rather done on a quarterly basis. > But how would you force Operators to comply ? What to do with those who > won’t bother to access the services and will leave their invalid contact ? > As Mark Foster said, they won’t do it unless compelled to do so ... > > An idea would be to fine those who don't comply, and the fine will have to > be a percentage of what the member is paying annually to the APNIC, so that > it would be cheaper for him to engage the required resources to do the job > than having to pay for the fine … it’s sad but it usually works to touch at > one’s wallet ! > The price for theses ressources can be (if not already) charged to the > customer. > > I have to agree with Paul Rendek, I don’t see how having two separate > databases would solve this issue. Gaurab’s idea to tag the authoritative > and the operator entries is very good, but then again it would not solve > this issue. > > It’s in everyone’s benefit to have a reliable and accurate whois database, > and in a perfect world, everyone would do their part > > That was my two francs (we don’t have cents) > > Thank you > > Bertrand > > Le 19 mai 2016 à 00:10, Sumon Ahmed Sabir <[email protected]> a écrit > : > > Dear Colleagues, > > The Policy SIG meeting at APNIC 41 included a session about incorrect > contact information registered in the APNIC Whois Database. > > The Secretariat has prepared a summary of the discussion. You can read > it at the following URL. > https://www.apnic.net/community/policy/policy-sig/whois-data-quality > > After the session, it was agreed we should continue discussing the > problem and encourage others to suggest ways the accuracy of this data > can be improved. > > Please read the summary and share your thoughts on this mailing list. > > Thank you > > Sumon and Masato > APNIC Policy SIG Chairs > * sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource management policy > * > _______________________________________________ > sig-policy mailing list > [email protected] > https://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy > > > > > > [image: Logo] <https://www.mls.nc> *Bertrand Cherrier*, Administrateur > Systèmes > [email protected] www.mls.nc > @micrologicnc <http://twitter.com/micrologicnc> Sur facebook > <https://www.facebook.com/mls.nc> > Téléphone: 24 99 24 > VoIP: 65 24 99 24 > Service Clientèle: 36 67 76 (58F/min) > > > * sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource management policy > * > _______________________________________________ > sig-policy mailing list > [email protected] > https://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy > --
* sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource management policy * _______________________________________________ sig-policy mailing list [email protected] https://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy
