On Fri, 17 May 2002, Derek J. Balling wrote: > 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?
Reason enough IMHO. Again, my point is that there is a supporting circumstance driving the request - I am not real strict about that definition - however, I do require it. My real problem is when the supporting circumstance sems to be "having fun". :) > >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? Not arguing against the responsibility. Putting forward that (like all policy) it should be viewed through a reasonable filter. :) > >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.) Unintentional bad contact data is generally completely pooched. It is not simple to assess and correct (generally). > > 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"? I am real loose in my defintion. Curiosity, fun, over-zealous self rigtheousness, and entertainment are about the only motivations I reject (beyond "none"). > >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? I am arguing that this term was designed to be used selectively. Or, when written reality was not known and considered (as is often the case). > Do I get to pick > and choose when I'll actually have to pay my renewal fees as well? Yes. You are free to select this. There are consequences. > Can I selectively ignore the UDRP if I so choose, Yup you can. Consequences. >because, after all, > the intended use of the UDRP isn't really how it's often used these > days. It is not a perfect world. I put forward that we should not make it worse. > >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? ;-) Ha! You are drawing too strict a line between the two examples, and then mixing them up. I stated I wanted a good reason for WHOIS challenges. I put forward that the best equal analogy in what you put forward was evidence (lets say in the case of spam). > > 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? To ensure the policy is not abused. Real simple. >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. I am happy to do it, if I am doing for a reason other that satisfying someone's curiosity. Ola! :) sA
