At 4:11 PM -0400 5/17/02, Chuck Hatcher wrote: >As noble as the goal may be, is it realistic to think it is achievable, let >alone easy?
The submission of the bad data to Tucows' attention should certainly be made easy. >The resources spent on cleaning up the data must be paid for, whether >directly or indirectly (through increased registration cost). Correct. That's a cost that Tucows did/should-have calculated into their business model, though, right? > Most would >agree in principle that the data should be accurate (not so many think it >should be so accessible). But the accuracy is the responsibility of the >registrants, and why do we need to actively police their compliance? Why >not just handle each case as it becomes a problem? I guess my point is that I've got a long list of folks where it IS a problem, so why should it be so difficult to get the data into the right peoples hands with a minimum of hand-holding? >If you need to dispute a domain name with false registrant information, you >can do so "in rem". If you have a problem with spam or other abuse, you can >deal with the ISP providing the connectivity. Deal with the ISP... you've obviously never tried to get many-a-large-ISP to actually kill a spammer. ;-) >Maybe I'm missing something, but what's the big deal? That the submission process to compliance for "bad info" should be simple, and shouldn't require a lot of effort on the part of the submitter. The submitter shouldn't have to spell out to Tucows that having a phone number of "000-000-0000" is bad, or that they really aren't at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. D -- +---------------------+-----------------------------------------+ | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | "Thou art the ruins of the noblest man | | Derek J. Balling | That ever lived in the tide of times. | | | Woe to the hand that shed this costly | | | blood" - Julius Caesar Act 3, Scene 1 | +---------------------+-----------------------------------------+
