Re: [ga] WHOIS accuracy, and name deletions

[Thomas Roessler <roessler@does-not-exist.org>]

On 2003-01-07 02:15:01 -0800, George Kirikos wrote:

> Folks might not be aware of discussions going on in the WHOIS
> accuracy task force of the DNSO/GNSO. See:

> http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/nc-whois/Arc00/msg00806.html

> for instance. 

> Am I the only one who is concerned that a legitimately held name
> might be deleted due to a simple failure to respond within 15
> days? 

You're certainly not alone with that concern.  But the 15 day period
isn't new at all -- it's current policy, RAA 3.7.7.2.

See <http://does-not-exist.net/issues-accuracy.html#3> for some
links to comments the Task Force got on that topic, in response to
the "Shanghai report".  Subsequent discussions on the Task Force
repeatedly took this up, and several members suggested that the
current policy should be changed.  Bad enough, there was no clear
consensus for this change. Objections basically boiled down to the
desire to be able to quickly and thoroughly take down the really bad
guys' web sites by cancelling the corresponding domain name
registration.  (Of course, that's another can of worms: Notice and
takedown through registrars.)

So, for now, the Task Force's policy report (*) just says that (1)
current accuracy provisions should be enforced, (2) side effects
should be monitored, (3) this is an issue which needs further work.

(*) <http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20021130.NCWhoisTF-accuracy-and-bulkaccess.html>

The public comment address for that report will remain open until 9
January 2003, i.e., Thursday.

PLEASE articulate any concerns with the Task Force's recommendations
in comments sent to <comments-whois@dnso.org>.  Please do so ASAP.

(Note that the first comment period was in late November and early
December, with a Names Council vote expected for the Amsterdam
meeting.  However, the Names Council decided not to immediately
adopt the report's recommendations.  Instead, another comment period
was started, and there'll be an implementation committee producing a
report on the report by 31 January 2003.  The NC is now expected to
vote on this at some point in February -- you'll have to check their
telephone conference schedule for details.)

> Given the amount of spam out there (it's easy to accidentally
> skip over an email, thinking it was spam), and lack of guaranteed
> delivery of email, I think that this is a very dangerous and
> poorly thought-out proposal for legitimate domain holders,
> especially those with small staffs (or self-employed).

The problem is that this is not a "proposal", but current policy...

By the way, some registrars' agreements with registrants are even
worse than the RAA's 15 days.  One member of the Task Force reported
about a fraudulent accuracy complaint which caused a registrar to
demand a response within 7 (SEVEN!) calendar days.  Not replying
during that time period would have caused cancellation of the domain
name in question.  So there you have yet another policy issue to
deal with: Establishing a uniform /lower/ bound on the time period
to be given to registrants for responding to accuracy inquiries from
their registrars.

> I would hope that OpenSRS and other leading registrars would
> implement a "white-list" (where domain WHOIS is permanently
> marked as "accurate", or if not permanent than for long intervals
> of months, not days) of protected names, or other mechanisms to
> ensure that legitimate and correct domains are not hijacked
> through misuse of this policy, and that domains are protected.
> "Rogue" domain holders, with obviously fake WHOIS should be
> pursued, but legitimate holders should be protected.

Good proposal.

-- 
Thomas Roessler                        http://log.does-not-exist.net/
--
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