Re: [gnso-dow123] Accuracy Proposal

[Ross Rader <ross@xxxxxxxxxx>]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On 03/05/2005 12:59 PM Vittorio Bertola noted that;

Thanks for the great questions Vittorio. Answers are interspersed below...

> Sorry to flood the mailing list today... but I have some questions to
> ask on this proposal (actually, I've been making them various times in
> the past, but I never got any convincing reply):
> 
> - In which language would attempts to contact the registrant be made?

Whatever language the registrar and registrant have agreed to use for
communications such as this. In Canada, it is quite standard for
contracts to specify governing languages for all future communications
related to the execution of the contract. I believe this can be dealt
with as a contractual matter and not part of the policy.

> - What does it mean for the registrant to validly "respond"? If the
> registrar rings the phone number and someone on the other end picks up
> the phone and starts to speak in Vietnamese so that the caller can't
> understand a word, would that be a valid response? And for postal mail,
> would it be enough if the letter doesn't get back as undeliverable, or
> would we require to get a written reply?

The goal of these communications is not to contact the individual or
organization, but to ensure that their whois data is accurate. As long
as updated information is provided, it doesn't matter what the form of
the response is.

> 
> - What would happen if the attempt to contact the registrant failed due
> to a mistake by the registrar (for example, the registrar's clerk dials
> the number incorrectly, or misspells the postal address)? (In years of
> work with international entities and people, I can't really count the
> times when my own name or address was misspelt in ways that would make
> it unrecognizable for an Italian postman... even in cases where the
> writer was copying it from a computer-printed record)
> 

The registrar would be liable for correcting their mistake and any costs
associated with damages. Again, this is a standard contract issue that
can be dealt with privately. This same risk exists at all levels inside
the registration process (I once inadvertently deleted a few hundred
names a couple of years back while I was testing out some new software.
It took a great deal of begging, arm-twisting and bribing to make good
on the mistake.)

> - What do you mean by the registrant "certifying" the validity of new
> data? Would formal certification by public authorities be required?

To put it another way, the Registrant would have to explicitly state
that the new data is accurate and if found to be inaccurate, that they
would be in violation of their registrant agreement. Breach of this
agreement is grounds for terminating the agreement (i.e. deleting the name).

> At the same time, while I clearly see a lot of practical problems and
> costs tied to these measures, I still don't understand which problem
> they are meant to address. If it's the "emergency situation" when
> someone is phishing etc. from a domain registered with fake information,
> then they are useless as 30 days is way too long a time to wait to take
> the offending site down, nor would these measures work as disincentives.
> Otherwise, apart from accuracy for the sake of accuracy, I still need to
> get a convincing real world case where these measures would make a
> difference.

I don't have a huge cost concern associated with this proposal - it
essentially ratifies the best practices that already exist among
registrars. I do share your concerns regarding mandate, effectiveness,
and so on. I too would appreciate understanding the accuracy
requirements much better.

Regards,

- --




                       -rwr



Tucows Start Service: http://start.tucows.com

My contact info: http://www.blogware.com/profiles/ross
My weblog: http://www.byte.org/

"Few things are impossible to diligence and skill. Great works are
performed not by strength, but perseverance." - Samuel Johnson
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.3-nr1 (Windows XP)

iD8DBQFCd7EU6sL06XjirooRAinPAJ9wicndYoHO3Tae3AuIQMYb7EzWnACdHqd+
1wf7Rf2aExXlJXUwMTtuk4s=
=4vUt
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----