>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...
I'd do them one at a time as I come across them "going forward", but I've got a helluvalot of them in a database that haven't been reported, that's all. ;-) >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. What if you (random individual, not you at the registrar) needed/wanted to serve legal documents to someone who'd thrown the street address of Wrigley Field on their whois data? The more we sit and say "ahhh, they shouldn't really get punished too bad for that", the more often that type of thing will happen, because there's no "negative reinforcement" for doing it. >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. Wait... isn't it the registrar's responsibility, when confronted with a domain-registration with bad data, to do just that? >Furthermore, unintentional bad contact data (as you must be aware) is the >hidden bane of our industry. Agreed. But unintentional bad contact data is easily corrected by the folks who have the bad data (e.g., if example.tld is given to you as having bad phone number, and they've got a number that was in an area-code split, contacting the registrant and saying "hey, why not get this updated to be accurate" shouldn't be too much to ask.) > It is rampant and common. Promoting an >environment where challenges are put forward regularly without supporting >circumstances would not serve many many registrants. What do you define as "supporting circumstances"? The registrant agreement puts the burden of "keeping the data accurate" on the registrant. It puts the burden of enforcing that policy on the registrar. If it is brought to the registrar's attention that the data is inaccurate -- in violation of said agreement -- what other "supporting circumstances" are needed? >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. I'm confused how asking a registrar to enforce the registrar-registrant agreement terms is "abuse". What's the point of the agreement if it is only selectively enforced? Do I get to pick and choose when I'll actually have to pay my renewal fees as well? Can I selectively ignore the UDRP if I so choose, because, after all, the intended use of the UDRP isn't really how it's often used these days. >To respond to your ISP analogy, the difference would be responding to >evidence (which should be done) and pursuing reports based on allegation >alone. If I hand you a record with a telephone number of "000-000-0000", or a copy of a WHOIS record and a copy of the bounced e-mail, that's not "allegation alone", that's evidence. I understand evidentiary rules may be different in Canada, but I don't think they're THAT different, are they? ;-) > 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. That's just crazy to me. Why should I have to put up coin to get a registrar to their job? That's what the registrar signed on for. It's the "crappy end" of the deal. You get to collect lots of money for domains, and have to maintain databases and shuffle lots of paperwork. Some of that paperwork is folks pointing out peoples' botched contact info. 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 | +---------------------+-----------------------------------------+
