DNSO Mailling lists archives


<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

Re: [nc-impwhois] Melbourne IT WHOIS implementation comments

On 2003-01-16 17:58:35 -0500, Steve Metalitz wrote:

> (3) The use of a commercially reasonable verification/validation
> utility (whether in-house to the registrar or suplied by a third
> party) that meets specified (to be developed) criteria sounds
> right to me.

According to the procedure proposed by Bruce, a verdict from an
external validator which arrives within 60 days after the registrant
has submitted updated contact information would lead to an
/immediate/ registrar-hold (i.e., removal from the zone file) for
the domain name in question. The domain name holder would not be
heared any more.  I'd be very concerned if registrars would
ultimately have to make this kind of decision based on a response
from an automated system which just looks at an address (and at
publicly available information), but does not actually try to use

From my point of view, such automated systems are fine for
plausibility-checking data.  But they should not be considered as an
authoritative source of "proof" that an address or telephone number
is inaccurate.

I.e., I don't want to see domain names cancelled or put on hold just
because Rick Wesson's Fraudit system persistently and wrongly claims
that certain telephone numbers are invalid. (Use the fraudit demo
system at http://www.ar.com/fraudit/WebDemo.do to check
does-not-exist.info or, say, alac.info for accuracy.  In both cases,
correct telephone numbers are identified as incorrect.)

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

<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>