[nc-whois] Fw: Fw: [ga] What Do They Mean By "Inaccurate Data"

["Ram Mohan" <rmohan@afilias.info>]

----- Original Message -----
From: "Marilyn Cade" <marilynscade@hotmail.com>
To: <rmohan@afilias.info>; <metalitz@iipa.com>
Cc: <mcade@att.com>
Sent: Wednesday, October 16, 2002 6:30 AM
Subject: Re: Fw: [ga] What Do They Mean By "Inaccurate Data"


>
>
> Ram, please post to the entire TF, if you don't mind. I don't have the
> address on my hotmail account. This shoudl be viewed as "input" to the TF.
>
>
>
>
> >From: "Ram Mohan" <rmohan@afilias.info>
> >To: "Steve Metalitz" <metalitz@iipa.com>
> >CC: "Cade,Marilyn S - LGA" <mcade@att.com>, <marilynscade@hotmail.com>
> >Subject: Fw: [ga] What Do They Mean By "Inaccurate Data"
> >Date: Tue, 15 Oct 2002 15:18:36 -0400
> >
> >fyi.
> >
> >----- Original Message -----
> >From: "John Berryhill Ph.D. J.D." <john@johnberryhill.com>
> >To: <comments-whois@dnso.org>; <metalitz@iipa.com>; "[GA]" <ga@dnso.org>
> >Sent: Tuesday, October 15, 2002 2:32 PM
> >Subject: [ga] What Do They Mean By "Inaccurate Data"
> >
> >
> > >
> > > In briefly looking over the whois task force report, there is quite a
> >bit
> >of
> > > emphasis on "inaccurate" contact data, including a scale of graduated
> >fines
> > > for "inaccurate" data maintained by registrars.
> > >
> > > I do not find anywhere in the document, a definition of "inaccurate"
> >data,
> >or
> > > who ultimately determines whether data is "inaccurate".  It is amazing
> >that
> > > any person of competence would draft a document revolving around a
> >central
> > > concept, and never provide a definition of that concept.
> > >
> > > As a point of reference, I am currently defending a domain name
> >registrant
> >in
> > > a UDRP dispute, who has had a domain name corresponding to their
> >corporate
> > > name since 1995, and which has an annual revenue from this corporation
> >of
> > > several hundred thousands of dollars per year.  The business is a
> >software
> > > consultancy, let's call it XYZ Corp., which provides services on-site
to
> > > corporate customers.  The business operates out of an office in one of
> >the
> > > homes of the principals of the corporation, and communicates primarily
> > > electronically with its clients, through its domain name XYZ.com.  For
> > > telephone calls, they utilize a telephone which is listed to the wife
of
> >one
> > > of the principals (they appropriated her phone number for use in the
> >family
> > > business).
> > >
> > > The main argument being advanced by the complainant is that the
> >respondent
> > > has supplied "false" whois data.  The complainant and its three
Beverly
> >Hills
> > > lawyers have submitted several pages of argument and affidavits which
> >boil
> > > down to an assertion of "Because the telephone number is not listed by
> >the
> > > phone company to XYZ Corp., then it is not the telephone number of XYZ
> >Corp.,
> > > therefore the contact data is false and the domain name is registered
in
> >bad
> > > faith."
> > >
> > > Now, I'm not an idiot, and I don't imagine for one red-hot minute that
> >these
> > > people would hesitate to spend thousands of dollars to apply pressure
to
> >a
> > > registrar to cancel the domain name or else risk being fined on the
same
> > > stupid and specious argument.
> > >
> > > So, my question is, when an idiot persists in making such an argument
> >that
> > > contact data is "inaccurate", just what is the standard of "accuracy"
to
> >be
> > > applied, and who makes the final determination that it is inaccurate.
> >The
> > > whois task force document addresses none of these questions, and it is
> >clear
> > > to me that these questions will be of central importance in this whole
> > > "assertion of inaccuracy" and "documented proof of accuracy" business.
> >It
> >is
> > > a standardless standard.
> > >
> > > Also, please make it clear that these rules require the domain name
> > > registrant to have a working voice telephone number, and that having
> >same
> >is
> > > a requirement for registering a domain name.  Does the telephone
number
> >need
> > > to be listed to the named registrant?  Does the domain name registrant
> >need
> > > to be the named party on bills for that number, or is it possible for
> >one
> > > family member to register a domain name using a telephone number
listed
> >to
> > > another family member?  Is it permissible for a home-based corporation
> >to
> >use
> > > a residential telephone number listed to a principal's wife as its
> >telephone
> > > number?  Or is that "inaccurate"?  These are not joke questions, as
this
> >very
> > > issue has cost my clients hundreds of dollars to argue about.
> > >
> > > Does the registrant have to answer the telephone when it rings?  I kid
> >you
> > > not, I have been in other disputes where contact data was alleged to
be
> > > "false" on the basis that the disputing party had called several times
> >and
> > > had not gotten an answer.  Ditto for domain name registrants who
choose
> >not
> > > to answer every item of email sent to them.
> > >
> > > There should be a procedure under which, once contact data has been
> >confirmed
> > > as accurate, the domain name registrant will not subsequently be
> >required
> >to
> > > confirm the same contact data.  It is as predictable as rain in
> >September
> > > that registrants who manage multiple domain names will be subject to
> > > unremitting harassment, since there are no fines assessed against
anyone
> >who
> > > submits a "false contact data" inquiry.  Such complaints can
apparently
> >be
> > > submitted for free and as often as one desires.  Predictably, there
are
> >no
> > > burdens placed upon parties making complaints, only upon domain name
> > > registrants and their registrars.   Even a nominal fee imposed on
> > > complainants for processing complaints would be an improvement.
> > >
> > > Ah, but once again, we see a proposed policy which has been drafted by
> >those
> > > intent on making complaints, and not those who have to deal with the
> > > consequences of repetitive spurious complaints.  In the minds of the
> > > complainers, all complaints have merit, and it is the job of the rest
of
> >the
> > > world to pay their way, thus providing another petty harassment tool
to
> >the
> > > less high-minded.
> > >
> > > Please explain where these issues are addressed in the interim report,
> >as
> >it
> > > is hard to believe that something as basic as a definition of
> >"inaccurate"
> > > cannot be found therein.  There is not even a definition of something
as
> > > basic as "registrant name" and whether it includes nicknames,
pen-names,
> > > latinized non-Roman script names, names of unincorporated businesses
> > > organizations such as partnerships etc.  It is clear that lack of
> >definitions
> > > will lead to endless disputes over "accuracy" when one attempts to
apply
> >ones
> > > personal and vague definition of 'accurate' upon a registration system
> >that
> > > encompasses millions of entities from all parts of our planet.
> > >
> > > Regards,
> > >
> > > John Berryhill
> > >
> > > --
> > > 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
> > >
>
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Get faster connections -- switch to MSN Internet Access!
> http://resourcecenter.msn.com/access/plans/default.asp
>