RE: [registrars] whois lookup

["Tim Ruiz" <tim@godaddy.com>]

Makes sense Tom. As long as the "service" Paul was referring to is an opt in
value added service. I guess I was reading "service" as in component or NT
Service.

Tim

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-registrars@dnso.org [mailto:owner-registrars@dnso.org]On
Behalf Of Tom D'Alleva
Sent: Monday, June 03, 2002 4:02 PM
To: Registrars@Dnso. Org
Subject: RE: [registrars] whois lookup


As long as the registrant CHOOSES to have this process in place for spam
avoidance and email continues to be properly forwarded, to fix any potential
issues with transfers is simply a matter of the registrant electing to have
the process turned off.
As far as incentives for the losing registrar, I think the current rules
concerning valid whois information are good enough to ensure compliance when
the registrant wants her/his real email address put back in, but maybe I
havent been fooled enough.

fool me 3 times ...?

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Tim Ruiz [mailto:tim@godaddy.com]
> Sent: Monday, June 03, 2002 4:32 PM
> To: Ross Wm. Rader; Tom D'Alleva; Registrars@Dnso. Org
> Subject: RE: [registrars] whois lookup
>
>
> Also, I'm sure a number of us are trying to automate as much of
> this process
> as possible. For example, you might ask the registrant for the current
> contact info and then compare it against what is pulled up in
> Whois. If the
> registrant is not continually staying on top of what is being used for an
> email address, they're going to run into a lot of aggravation trying to
> successfully pass this kind of test.
>
> Tim
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-registrars@dnso.org [mailto:owner-registrars@dnso.org]On
> Behalf Of Ross Wm. Rader
> Sent: Monday, June 03, 2002 2:55 PM
> To: Tom D'Alleva; Registrars@Dnso. Org
> Subject: Re: [registrars] whois lookup
>
>
> 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
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
>