Re: [registrars] whois lookup

["Ross Wm. Rader" <ross@tucows.com>]

The point is that the losing registrar has *zero* incentive to keep the mail
running once they have received a transfer request. They also have *zero*
incentive to forward the correct whois information to the new registrar.

A few registrars have significant problems sticking to even the most basic
conventions regarding transfers - why should this be any different?

Fool me once, shame on me...

-rwr
----- Original Message -----
From: "Tom D'Alleva" <tdalleva@bulkregister.com>
To: "Registrars@Dnso. Org" <registrars@dnso.org>
Sent: Monday, June 03, 2002 3:36 PM
Subject: RE: [registrars] whois lookup


> It's not a problem because even though the email address changes
regularly,
> the email continues to be forward to the registrant correctly.  Upon
> transfer the correct whois information could and should be sent to the
> gaining registrar.
> The fact that someone is trying to patent the process doesnt surprise me
but
> it's not likely to hold-up.
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: owner-registrars@dnso.org [mailto:owner-registrars@dnso.org]On
> > Behalf Of Ross Wm. Rader
> > Sent: Monday, June 03, 2002 3:09 PM
> > To: Tom Chaffin; Registrars@Dnso. Org
> > Subject: Re: [registrars] whois lookup
> >
> >
> > Apparently that would be *your* problem Tom (and mine and most others
that
> > would like to do business in this space). But then again, most of the
> > process innovations that I've seen over the last while are not all that
> > "community aware", so I suppose I shouldn't be surprised.
> >
> > -rwr
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Tom Chaffin" <tchaffin@stargateinc.com>
> > To: "Registrars@Dnso. Org" <registrars@dnso.org>
> > Sent: Monday, June 03, 2002 2:57 PM
> > Subject: RE: [registrars] whois lookup
> >
> >
> > > How would the gaining registrar deal with the inaccuracy of the
> > data?  The
> > > admin e-mail address the gaining registrar has on file, at the time
the
> > > transfer was requested, would now be incorrect, right?  As the gaining
> > > registrar I would be unable to communicate with the registrant
> > beyond the
> > > first week.  That is assuming the registrant does not update
> > their contact
> > > information to reflect the correct e-mail address after the transfer
has
> > > been approved.
> > >
> > > Tom
> > > Stargate
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: owner-registrars@dnso.org [mailto:owner-registrars@dnso.org]On
> > > Behalf Of Paul Stahura
> > > Sent: Monday, June 03, 2002 1:19 PM
> > > To: Registrars@Dnso. Org
> > > Subject: RE: [registrars] whois lookup
> > >
> > >
> > > Just like with illegal drugs, there is the supply-side and the
> > demand-side.
> > > What Ken is talking about below is the demand-side.
> > > He makes valid point that I happen to agree with.
> > >
> > > An additional way of limiting the abuse is on the supply-side.
> > > We are contemplating implementing an "whois-email-address-changer"
> > > service whereby the email addresses in eNom's port-43 output
> > > will be dynamic.  I forget which other registrar is already doing this
> > > (or soimething similar) (please tell me if you know which one)
> > > This service will change the outputted email addresses to
> > something like:
> > > "thisaddrwillexpirein24hours.code1234567890@whoisemailforwarder.com"
> > > all email sent to this address will be forwarded to the real address.
> > > These addresses will be valid for a period of time
> > > (like 24 hours, or a week) at which time it will never be used again.
> > > This gives registrars enough time to send xfer notices (or whatever
> > > "good" purposes we use the info for), yet
> > > would then invalidate any abuser's scrapped whois information
> > > every 24-hours.
> > > The real addresses will still be publically available in our web-based
> > > whois,
> > > just like it is now.  (email addrs are outputted as a gif images there
> > > which is harder to grab/parse, since you need OCR to do so).
> > >
> > > Comments?
> > >
> > > Paul
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Ken Stubbs [mailto:kstubbs@digitel.net]
> > > Sent: Monday, June 03, 2002 5:29 AM
> > > To: Ross Wm. Rader; Registrars@Dnso. Org
> > > Subject: Re: [registrars] whois lookup
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > I would assume that this kind of behavior I described  would affect
ALL
> > > registrar's image and would be sanctioned under any proposed registrar
> > "code
> > > of conduct" .
> > >
> > > improper registrar actions towards outside parties (be they their own
> > > customers, other registrars customers or registries) can influence
> > outsiders
> > > views of our "constituents" and that is of paramount concern to me.
> > >
> > > I am frankly tired of people using  the improper actions of a few
> > registrars
> > > to "paint" all registrars.
> > >
> > > if we want to have future creditability for our constituency,
> > then we need
> > > to be willing to "step up to the plate" and deal difficult issues like
> > this
> > > which affect our respective business image..
> > >
> > > any registrar who uses improper & unethical  business practices to
> > > "advantage" themselves in the marketplace needs to be "strongly
> > sanctioned"
> > > and the issues I raise most definitely fall within this area.
> > >
> > > ken stubbs
> > >
> > >
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: "Ross Wm. Rader" <ross@tucows.com>
> > > To: "Ken Stubbs" <kstubbs@digitel.net>; "Bhavin Turakhia"
> > > <bhavin.t@directi.com>; "Registrars@Dnso. Org" <registrars@dnso.org>
> > > Sent: Monday, June 03, 2002 8:00 AM
> > > Subject: Re: [registrars] whois lookup
> > >
> > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > how do you suggest we deal with registrars who
> > intentionally data mine
> > > the
> > > > > "thick registries "
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > ken stubbs
> > > >
> > > > That's a problem for the registries to deal with. Let us
> > instead concern
> > > > ourselves with data mining of registrars under the thin
> > model...each of
> > us
> > > > are directly effected...
> > > >
> > > > -rwr
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>