I would generally agree with your statements. I would just put forward that having a reason for a challenge is an important necessary distinction. All of the situations you outline below would qualify by my standards as valid requests for challenging.
Scott Allan Director, OpenSRS [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Fri, 17 May 2002, Bryan Waters wrote: > I understand the issue about unintentional bad data in the WHOIS database, > but there is a level of responsibility related to a domain name > registration. In most cases, the WHOIS information is the final fallback of > registration information for a site doing business on the net. Physical > businesses have licensing requirements, certifications and other relevent > laws to adhere to...the purpose of which is to protect the consumer. > > The internet has none of these requirements except maybe the WHOIS data and > the ICANN requirement that this data is valid. A consumer that has a > complaint against a web-site has very little recourse if even this data is > invalid. To operate a business and hide your identity is fraudulent and > dishonest. Of course there should be some sort of legal requirement that > this information be valid... > > Of course...all my arguments pertain to commerce sites but...well, you are > not allowed to lie on your driver's license either. I guess my point is > that there is a definite responsiblity associated with having a domain name > registration...greater or lesser depending on the nature of the > site/services associated with the domain and its impact on the Internet > community. > > -bryanw > > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Scott Allan > Sent: Friday, May 17, 2002 6:43 PM > To: Derek J. Balling > Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: WHOIS registrant data inaccuracies followup > > > 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 > >
