On Fri, 17 May 2002, Derek J. Balling wrote: > Would you support the same type of program for, say, abuse complaints > to an ISP? If not, expound upon me the difference between the two?
Hey Derek - I think what has me scratching my head is making sense of the logic/motivation of challenging names in bulk where the only abuse demonstrated is bad contact data... The way I see it (MHO only) this is a great lever for use where there are abusive related activities (SPAM, questionable content, etc...) and where the registrant uses false WHOIS contact data as a defense to continue operations. Perhaps I am missing something, but I do not see a real prosecutable crime in bad WHOIS data alone. Certainly it should be discouraged, and anyone who puts any value on their name registration is foolish to intentionally roll the dice through intentional obscurity. Also, there is an overhead in pursuing these matters. While we are happy to pursue reports where there are supporting circumstances for a challenge, we are cautious about the usefulness and cost of mass challenges for no other reason than bad contact data. Furthermore, unintentional bad contact data (as you must be aware) is the hidden bane of our industry. It is rampant and common. Promoting an environment where challenges are put forward regularly without supporting circumstances would not serve many many registrants. The activities you suggest strike me as against the spirit of the intended use of the clause. An abuse of an abuse-reducing policy if you will. To respond to your ISP analogy, the difference would be responding to evidence (which should be done) and pursuing reports based on allegation alone. Finally, as a challenger, I have no problem with a deposit requirement to support my claim, provided I get it back if my claim is proven to be valid. Regards, sA
