RE: [nc-impwhois] Starting point for WHOIS implementation discussions
On Tue, 14 Jan 2003, Tim Ruiz wrote:
> Regarding 11: If we use those definitions renewing a domain will become
> unacceptably complicated. During a renewal a registrant should only be
> required to review their data and confirm that it is still correct, and be
> provided a way to make changes if necessary.
could you explain how things would get unacceptably complicated?
I continue to believe that a registrant acknologement is all that would be
required -- I don't understand how you come to the conclusion you did,
please elaborate as the definitions provided are only to add clarity to
VERIFIED - The registrant has acknowledged that the information is
true and correct.
VALIDATED - VERIFIED by a 3rd party that the data is syntactically
and semanticly ACCURATE.
ACCURATE - Free from error, conforming to local, geographical and
political postal addressing, international PSTN dialing
and RFC2822 standards.
example: The registrant VERIFIED that the contact details are ACCURATE.
now that sounds like what you orgionally suggested, and I asked what
happens when you find out that the registrant lied and the data was
VALIDATED by a 3rd party and found not to be accurate, or someone
complains via the Internic site, how do you prove that the data is or can
> As I have always maintained, any method we use to try to validate the
> accuracy in the manner you seem to suggest is going to increase the cost of
> registrations substantially. There is no way around that. And I have not
> seen anyone offer any tools, methods, etc. to assist with this that are
> reliable, up to date, 100% accurate, and internationl in scope.
FUD does us no good in dealing with these issues. nothing is 100% accurate
that why we pay discount rates =) Lets work towards understandable
language that solves these problems and isn't costly to anyones business.
> I strongly believe that for the average person, privacy is the pirmary
> reason for not giving full data, or inaccurate data. Without addressing
> their privacy concerns they will only become more adept at giving false
> data, giving us all a false sense of having accomplished something.
As I have written in my letters to the TF and in other forum, Privacy is a
big issue and I can't see why the TF failed to address it. Lets see if we
can add this to the issues we have with :43 access and see where we get.
The registrants would love it if we could add privacy protections for