At 8:54 PM -0700 5/17/02, wxWeb.com wrote: >The whois doesn't exist to serve as a database for where to serve >process to.
No, it exists as a database of domain-name holders, and if you need to serve the domain-name holder with a subpoena or other court document, that database must be in order. >Not in my opinion. I've debate this issue already on another list >whether the requirement requires any registrar to do anything with >mass submitted data, unless there is a pressing reason to do so, such >as a lawsuit against the registrant, etc. What part of http://www.icann.org/announcements/advisory-10may02.htm are you reading that "bulk exemption" from, because I just don't quite see it there. >Again, priority would/should be given if there is a PRESSING need for >that data to be corrected. I don't see "obviously false" as a >pressing need justifying the kind of man power that this would >require. ICANN disagrees. In fact, they so disagree that they say if the registrant doesn't provide good info within 15 calendar days, the registrant is in breach and forfeits the domain. Disagree all you like, but dem's da rules. Play by them or go form AlterNIC2 or something. :-) >Accepting mass reports without any other basis as you suggest a >registrar should would drive the costs up so high that domains would >become as pricey as SSL Certs are currently. Not my concern. If costs go up, costs go up. However, since this is all part of the Registrar Accreditation Agreement, such costs should already be included in Tucows' business model. If they're not, that's poor planning on Tucows' part. >A reason why the complainer needs the information updated, such as a >pending lawsuit, etc. Such as being "any person", which is really all ICANN requires, according to 3.7.8 of the RAA. I'm "any person", so are you. And if I report it, or you report it, or Joe Sixpack reports it, it has to be investigated and, in so doing, escalated through the chain towards correction or forfeiture. This all centers around the situation where "I have a lot of them to report". I can either do it "an easy way", where the submissions are received by Tucows in a sane manner, or the hard way, where I dump the database, clean it up a little, and send a couple hundred (thousand?) separate e-mail messages over to them. I'd like, personally, to find an easy way to give them the reports, but if I have to e-mail them out one at a time, that's what I've got to do. > > 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. > >Because it ISN'T a registrars job. What part of 3.7.8 is unclear. Let me, again, quote it for you, in case you've never read it: "3.7.8 Registrar shall abide by any specifications or policies established according to Section 4 requiring reasonable and commercially practicable (a) verification, at the time of registration, of contact information associated with a Registered Name sponsored by Registrar or (b) periodic re-verification of such information. Registrar shall, upon notification by any person of an inaccuracy in the contact information associated with a Registered Name sponsored by Registrar, take reasonable steps to investigate that claimed inaccuracy. In the event Registrar learns of inaccurate contact information associated with a Registered Name it sponsors, it shall take reasonable steps to correct that inaccuracy." which, in its 10 May 2002 Advisory, ICANN states: "Obligation to Investigate and Correct Reported Inaccuracies Subsection 3.7.8 of the RAA obliges registrars to "take reasonable steps to investigate" any inaccuracy in Whois data upon notification from "any person." In order to facilitate compliance with this responsibility, registrars should establish a clear mechanism for receiving, investigating, and tracking reported inaccuracies in their Whois data. In the absence of a clearly designated contact or channel for receiving complaints about inaccurate Whois data, registrars are responsible for acting upon "notifications" that may be received by diverse, and even informal, means. This may make it difficult for registrars to fulfill their obligations. Once a registrar receives notification of an inaccuracy, Subsection 3.7.8 requires the registrar to take "reasonable steps" to investigate and correct the reported inaccuracy. The term "reasonable steps" is not defined within the agreement; precisely what constitutes reasonable steps to investigate and correct a reported inaccuracy will vary depending on the circumstances (e.g., accepting unverified "corrected" data from a registrant that has already deliberately provided incorrect data may not be appropriate). At a minimum, "reasonable steps" to investigate a reported inaccuracy should include promptly transmitting to the registrant the "inquiries" concerning the accuracy of the data that are suggested by RAA Subsection 3.7.7.2. The inquiries should be conducted by all commercially practicable means available to the registrar: by telephone, e-mail, and postal mail." .... so yes, William, it very much IS their job. It's their job that they agreed to by agreeing to be handed a lucrative position as a domain-registrar. It's the responsibility that comes with the fat checks. Perhaps you should read the RAA, and the supporting ICANN documentation before you say what Tucows' duties are and are not? 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 | +---------------------+-----------------------------------------+
