<will_this_work_this_time> i've sent this e-mail 3 times now as it hasn't appeared on the list 24 hours later - so trying yet another variation of my e-mail address to see if it reaches the list this time! </will_this_work_this_time>
Derek what's the point - unless you've got loads of time on your hands even if its a valid mail & phone address - *how do you know its not just a mail drop / answering service?* Then what happens if it's not a .com / .net. / .org domain where would you get the info for microsoft.ie as even the Irish whois.domainregistry.ie will not give you their own details because of their data protection laws! i presume that you will ask the Swiss government to supply their phone numbers for gov.ch or how about the Saudi's for saudinic.net.sa try looking at http://www.uwhois.com/cgi/whois.cgi for other ideas such as gov.cn gov.gr gov.nl gov.sa gov.zm all registered & active but no way of getting contact info AFAIK or try the UK www.nic.uk to find out how not to contact companieshouse.gov.uk at least the Yanks appear to want to know who's traceing them try cia.gov @ http://www.nic.gov/whois.html :-) Martyn ----- Original Message ----- From: "Derek J. Balling" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Saturday, May 18, 2002 1:10 PM Subject: Re: WHOIS registrant data inaccuracies followup > > > 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". :) > > Fair enough. The submitting person then doesn't need to have a > "pretense" for wanting the data corrected, simply an assertion that > it is wrong, and here's how it is wrong? > > > > 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. :) > > I'm not insisting that when someone says "hey, I don't like > foobar.tld, are you sure that registrant data is right?" that it > should get the compliance full-court-press. But if someone says > "foobar.tld had dorked whois data, see?", it shouldn't matter if the > person has a personal grudge against foobar.tld, has a "legitimate" > grudge against them (spam complaint, legal issue, etc.), or simply > that they've never heard of foobar.tld, but came across it by > accident. > > >Unintentional bad contact data is generally completely pooched. It is not > >simple to assess and correct (generally). > > Hmph, I would have expected (from my experience with unintentional > bad data) that it's usually a case where "e-mail address has changed" > -OR- "phone number has changed" -OR- "mailing address has changed"... > not where all three happen at once. > > > > 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"). > > I guess I'm getting very confused on how you're using the phrase > "supporting circumstances". In the presence of evidence, are > supporting-circumstances necessary? > > > > 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. > > No doubt. :-) > > >It is not a perfect world. I put forward that we should not make it worse. > > I put forward we should try to make it better. :-) > > > > 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). > > I think there's just some confusion (between you and I) of what > differences there are in how you're using the word "evidence" and the > phrase "supporting circumstances". > > I'm not, at all, saying that someone should just be able to submit: > > From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: EXAMPLE.TLD > -------------------- > This domain is dorked in WHOIS, get them to fix it. > > > but I see no reason why anyone, regardless of their "motivation" > should be able to say: > > From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: EXAMPLE.TLD > -------------------- > This WHOIS record is dorked: > > [top of whois record.... snip...] > Someone Specific > [..snip address..] > 000-000-0000 > > > In the receipt of the former I can see compliance simply sending back > a "wtf" style response, but in the latter, I can't see any conditions > under which NOT investigating it would be acceptable. (OK, I can see > one, but I'll cover that below). > > > > 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. > > Why assume abuse? Why not accept from anyone, identify the abusers > (they'll stand out quite nicely *grin*), and then make THEM leap > through the hurdles? > > >I am happy to do it, if I am doing for a reason other that satisfying > >someone's curiosity. > > And if the reason is "because it's obvious the data's pooched and I'd > like the WHOIS database to be useful"? :-) > > 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 | > +---------------------+-----------------------------------------+ >
