Re: [ga] Legitimate Hi-Jacking

["L. Gallegos" <jandl@jandl.com>]

Mike,

Fifteen days is simply not long enough, given the consequences of a late
reply.  If a registrant from the middle east, Canada, Europe or asia has a
problem with a defunct ISP that causes a change in email addresses, for
instance, and has to use snail mail to or from the US, he might not receive
notification for weeks - many times three or more - and it takes the same
amount of time for return snail mail.  I live in the US - east coast - and it
has taken 10 days for me to receive mail from California and as much as a
week to receive mail from within the state. I have never received some mail.
Overnight mail to/from AU takes 3 to 4 days.  Canadian mail takes weeks on a
regular basis.  Mail delivery is horrendous.

I know that people generally do not have such extreme problems, but 15 days
under the circumstances is not efficient or even reasonable.  Under the above
scenario, even a telephone response would be too late, and some registrars
won't accept phone calls and do literally everything via web based forms.  In
addition, those who travel for business purposes or even take vacations make
this time frame impossible.  In the US, a vacation is usually a week or two,
but elsewhere a normal vacation can be more than four weeks and many travel
outside their countries.  ISPs fail every day, or change backbones and cause
email changes, technical contact changes...  Just these things alone is
enough to rethink WLS and potential loss of domains through events beyond the
control of registrants.

There are too many variables involved in this problem.  Verification of
incorrect data is difficult in any case, but for a registrant to lose a
domain because of an unduly short time frame and WLS is completely
unacceptable.  The domain should NOT be removed from the zones in just 15
days.

Leah

On Wednesday 04 September 2002 12:52 pm, Michael D. Palage wrote:
> John:
>
> I think you raise some interesting points that are important to closely
> monitor. As originally designed, I believe that this mechanism was to
> identify records in which the domain name applicants knowingly provided
> false or inaccurate information. However, I believe ICANN will find out
> that this mechanism is going to be used by numerous domain name registrants
> that have not been unable to timely update their records due to poor
> customer service by some registrars. I myself have been a victim of
> inordinate delays in trying to update contact information associated with a
> non-functioning email address, which directly impacted the ability of me to
> transfer my domain name.
>
> Other concerns that I have discussed with you deals with potential
> false/abusive submissions submitted to ICANN. As you mentioned I am not
> aware of any contractual or legal duty for a registrant to answer an email,
> phone call or postal correspondence from a third party. Therefore if domain
> name registrant X receives a cease and desist letter from Y. I know of no
> obligation requiring registrant X to respond. This scenario could create a
> potential burden for registrars that would then have to contact the
> registrant to differentiate between a non-responsive registrant and one
> that has provided false/inaccurate data. It is important to note that
> registrants do have a contractual obligation in their agreements to respond
> to registrar inquiries regarding false/inaccurate whois data.
>
> I believe the easiest way to prevent the scenario you discussed is to
> provide a longer runway prior to deleting the domain name for inaccurate
> data. I believe that after not responding to a 15 day whois inquiry, the
> domain name should be put on hold (removed from the zone files) but not
> automatically deleted. I believe that this distinction is important during
> the initial phases of this program to prevent the accrual of Redemption
> Grace Period fees that are likely to be substantial. There must be a
> distinction between a domain name that was placed on hold because of the
> inability of a registrant to update whois information, versus a domain name
> registrant that forgot to pay the bill.
>
> Just some of my initial thoughts although I am open for other suggestions
> and comments.
>
> Mike


--
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