RE: [ga] Re: Vint why do none of the NIC's have any way to inform them of WHOIS data that is wrong...

["Jon Lawrence" <jon@jonlawrence.com>]

<snip>
the registrars really need to be liable for their actions, i.e. the enablement
of the SPAM itself.
</snip>

...you don't need a domain name to send spam.

jon

>-- Original Message --
>From: "todd glassey" <todd.glassey@worldnet.att.net>
>To: "vinton g. cerf" <vinton.g.cerf@wcom.com>
>Cc: <ga@dnso.org>
>Subject: [ga] Re: Vint why do none of the NIC's have any way to inform
them
>of WHOIS data that is wrong...
>Date: Wed, 18 Sep 2002 07:47:41 -0700
>
>
>Vint the real issue is that for a large number of the APNIC's email and
>other contact info items are/is bogus. The real issue is that the NIC's
must
>start to be accountable for the integrity of the information they are using
>to justify or authorize their acting as publication agents and in instances
>where the domains are just setup for spamming, the registrars really need
>to
>be liable for their actions, i.e. the enablement of the SPAM itself.
>
>In many cases its identical to the Firearms Reseller Issues and we all
know
>where those lawsuits have gone and what their outcome is. What I propose
>is
>two fold. The first is that the registrars need to be accountable for
>providing services that are used to hurt other people or to impede their
>IP
>rights. The second is that the Layer Three ISP's have to be accountable
for
>what flows through their EMAIL GW's and oddly enough ICANN is still the
best
>place to enforce that. Because without DNS services they are dead in the
>water.
>
>Just my two cents.
>
>Todd
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "vinton g. cerf" <vinton.g.cerf@wcom.com>
>To: "todd glassey" <todd.glassey@worldnet.att.net>
>Cc: <ga@dnso.org>
>Sent: Tuesday, September 17, 2002 3:33 PM
>Subject: Re: Vint why do none of the NIC's have any way to inform them
of
>WHOIS data that is wrong...
>
>
>> this is a fairly current topic and I agree it does need to be
>> addressed. ICANN recently threatend Verisign with excommunication
>> over this issue and Verisign did respond but the problem is plainly
>> widespread. Of course, free email boxes exacerbate problems of this
>> kind, too, I guess. Thanks for this input; it will motivate more
>> effort on policy and implementation.
>>
>> vint
>>
>> At 07:23 AM 9/17/2002 -0700, todd glassey wrote:
>> >Vint - the operating process of the NIC's seem to have no way for
>> >individuals to report domains that are either misregistered or have
>> >fraudulent contact information or broken links for whatever reason.
>> >
>> >This is a real problem since these are the issues that spammers and
other
>> >peddlers of illicit materials create for themselves to hide behind.
For
>> >instance - I get this SPAM this morning showing half a dozen school
girls
>> >involved in various sexual acts and after doing a header analysis, we
>find
>> >it comes from a domain called 99talk.com, registered through the Boy
>Scouts
>> >of Australia, only the contact email addresses for the domain all
>bounce...
>> >
>> >And in instances like this one,  if the NIC bothered to check its contact
>> >data on a regular basis of course this would not be true. So I have
to
>ask -
>> >Why then do the InterNIC's not have any way of taking reports or doing
>> >anything about these fraudulent or inaccurate listings in the Whois
or
>other
>> >"client databases" maintained buy the NIC's?
>> >
>> >This is negligence in the Registrar and ICANN process, not an excuse
for
>> >plausible deniability and it needs to be addressed.
>> >
>> >Todd
>>
>> Vint Cerf
>> SVP Architecture & Technology
>> WorldCom
>> 22001 Loudoun County Parkway, F2-4115
>> Ashburn, VA 20147
>> 703 886 1690 (v806 1690)
>> 703 886 0047 fax
>>
>
>--
>This message was passed to you via the ga@dnso.org list.
>Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
>("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
>Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
>


--
This message was passed to you via the ga-full@dnso.org list.
Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga-full" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html