ICANN ICANN Email List Archives

[gnso-dow123]


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

RE: [gnso-dow123] Re: [registrars] Whois Operational Point of Contact

  • To: ross@xxxxxxxxxx
  • Subject: RE: [gnso-dow123] Re: [registrars] Whois Operational Point of Contact
  • From: Tim Ruiz <tim@xxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Tue, 29 Nov 2005 08:42:28 -0700

<div>Jay,</div>
<div>&nbsp;</div>
<div>I believe the intent of the proposal&nbsp;is that&nbsp;Registrars are
allowed to publically show the expiry date (but are&nbsp;not required
to). So if&nbsp;Registrars' customers overwhelmingly express the
concerns you raise it would seem that those Registrars would comply
with the demand.<BR><BR>Tim Ruiz<BR>VP, Domain Services<BR>The Go Daddy
Group, Inc.<BR>Office: 319-294-3940<BR>Fax: 480-247-4516<BR><A
href="mailto:tim@xxxxxxxxxxx";>tim@xxxxxxxxxxx</A><BR><BR><BR></div>
<BLOCKQUOTE style="PADDING-LEFT: 8px; MARGIN-LEFT: 8px; BORDER-LEFT:
blue 2px solid"><BR>-------- Original Message --------<BR>Subject:
[gnso-dow123] Re: [registrars] Whois Operational Point
of<BR>Contact<BR>From: Ross Rader &lt;ross@xxxxxxxxxx&gt;<BR>Date: Tue,
November 29, 2005 9:22 am<BR>To: Jay Westerdal
&lt;jwesterdal@xxxxxxxxxxxxx&gt;<BR>Cc: registrars@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx,
gnso-dow123@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx<BR><BR>As a general point, I think it would
be helpful if we could discuss this <BR>proposal in practical, candid
terms. You correctly point out that this <BR>proposal isn't a general
consensus. It is simply to early for that. This <BR>isn't simply the
views of large registrars though. I have discussed this <BR>proposal
with many different parties - registrars large and small,
<BR>resellers, registrants, registries and general internet users - all
with <BR>many different interests. This document represents the
consensus and <BR>interests of those that we have talked to.<BR><BR>One
of the interesting aspects of those conversations was the discovery
<BR>that those that tend to support this proposal are interested in
helping <BR>prevent abuse of personal contact data and the whois system
and to bring <BR>new utility to related applications. Those that don't
support it fall in <BR>one of two camps - they either aren't completely
informed about the <BR>subtler merits of the proposal or they are
abusing the system in some way.<BR><BR>One of the aspects of this
proposal will see the actual expiry date <BR>information (which aids
data miners and renewal scammers) replaced with <BR>enhanced status
information. i.e. instead of saying "This domain was <BR>registered on
August 12, 2001", it will simply say "ACTIVE", "PENDING <BR>EXPIRY",
"EXPIRED", and so on.<BR><BR>By enhancing the context of the status
messaging, registrants, <BR>resellers, etc. we preserve the publicly
accessible trouble-shooting and <BR>renewal tools but take some key
assets away from the data miners, <BR>renewal scammers and other
abusers.<BR><BR>Rather than using your valuable time to create a
competing proposal, it <BR>would be more useful if you would work with
us in making this one <BR>better. While there are some current points
of misunderstanding, I am <BR>sure that there are ways that we can work
together to bridge those gaps <BR>and work together on building a
consensus proposal that we can take <BR>forward together.<BR><BR>Thanks
for your input,<BR><BR>-ross<BR><BR>Jay Westerdal wrote:<BR>&gt;
Ross,<BR>&gt; I think the proposal looks good, except I would stress
that the expiration<BR>&gt; date at the registry level should NOT be
phased out or removed as your<BR>&gt; current proposal calls
for.<BR>&gt; <BR>&gt; Your proposal of eliminating that expiration date
field should be discussed<BR>&gt; with domain registrants that have
large portfolios. Further outreach is<BR>&gt; needed to achieve a
larger consensus driven approach to changing this data<BR>&gt; element
as it effects domain owners more then it does domain
registrars.<BR>&gt; Last time I publicly objected I had 6 or 7
registrars second my proposal to<BR>&gt; keep the field. I heard
nothing from you until this posting but I have not<BR>&gt; seen any
change in position or heard from you to discuss the issue since<BR>&gt;
then. So I am not sure your current proposal is consensus driven. I
welcome<BR>&gt; the opportunity to discuss with you the expiration date
field later this<BR>&gt; week.<BR>&gt; <BR>&gt; Since the first
mentioned of this idea on the list I have been discussing<BR>&gt; the
scenario of removing the expiration date with domain holders for
the<BR>&gt; last two months and I have found that domain holders are
generally against<BR>&gt; such an action. Meanwhile large registrars
are for it and small registrars<BR>&gt; are against it. It would seem
registrants and small registrars disagree with<BR>&gt; large registrars
on this critical field. I would ask that input be sought<BR>&gt; from
owners of domains before this proposal goes further as well as
the<BR>&gt; smaller registrars, some of which are not so small
actually.<BR>&gt; <BR>&gt; Registrants could not stress enough that
they use the expiration date field<BR>&gt; daily. Domain Registrants
rely on this date field to be uniform and the<BR>&gt; registry output
is the only place it can be found that is uniformly the<BR>&gt; same.
If this proposal got ratified as it stands registrars such as
Schlund<BR>&gt; and Melbourne IT are on the record for saying they
would stop showing the<BR>&gt; expiration date field altogether in
their own registrar output!<BR>&gt; <BR>&gt; This would leave
registrants with no PUBLIC way to determine when to renew<BR>&gt; their
domain or when it expired. The impact on Registrants would be huge.
No<BR>&gt; hosting company, tech support, or advisor to the domain
owner without direct<BR>&gt; username and password of a particular
domain could check the expiration<BR>&gt; date. Even then it would not
be as efficient because a person may have<BR>&gt; domains are several
registrars. I realize the problems Registrars face with<BR>&gt; this
field currently is that the Registry logic confuses registrants. If
the<BR>&gt; registries' 45 day grace expiration date confusion was
cleared up there is<BR>&gt; no sufficient grounds to remove the
expiration date from the registry<BR>&gt; output.<BR>&gt; <BR>&gt; The
additional argument that I have heard is that DROA or other like
minded<BR>&gt; organizations use this field to trick domain owners into
transferring<BR>&gt; registrars. With the quote, "It makes their scam
look more real to have an<BR>&gt; expiration date listed". This theory
is not a well thought out, if a domain<BR>&gt; owner is so easily
tricked into switching and if DROA no longer had access<BR>&gt; to the
expiration date field then why would DROA not take the creation
date<BR>&gt; field and add the current year. Now the end user has no
way to validate<BR>&gt; expiration date publicly and the expiration
guess would be right 85% of the<BR>&gt; time, would the owner not be
more likely to believe the scam now? Clearly it<BR>&gt; is easier to
trick customers if you take away information from them. The<BR>&gt;
registrant is more likely to believe this is their current registrar if
you<BR>&gt; have information they believed is to be private. I reject
this whole<BR>&gt; argument of hiding expiration date as a means to
avoiding scams. Scams will<BR>&gt; increase not decrease by the removal
of this field. You can quote me on<BR>&gt; that. The only solid argument
for change is the 45 day issue with registry<BR>&gt; display being off
by a year after expiration.<BR>&gt; <BR>&gt; I plan to submit a
proposal to solve the expiration date confusion at the<BR>&gt; registry
output and leave the date there, if anyone would like to be<BR>&gt;
included in helping define such a proposal please email me and I will
setup<BR>&gt; a separate mailing list to discuss the issue. Perhaps we
can informally meet<BR>&gt; this week to discuss the issue offline as
well. I welcome all to<BR>&gt; collaborate, big registrars, small
registrars, and domain owners.<BR>&gt; <BR>&gt; Jay Westerdal<BR>&gt;
Name Intelligence, Inc.<BR>&gt; http://www.nameintelligence.com
&nbsp;<BR>&gt; <BR>&gt; -----Original Message-----<BR>&gt; From:
owner-registrars@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx<BR>&gt;
[mailto:owner-registrars@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Ross
Rader<BR>&gt; Sent: Monday, November 28, 2005 10:47 PM<BR>&gt; To:
registrars@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx<BR>&gt; Cc:
gnso-dow123@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx<BR>&gt; Subject: [registrars] Whois
Operational Point of Contact<BR>&gt; <BR>&gt; Registrars,<BR>&gt;
<BR>&gt; In Mar del Plata, a small group of like-minded registrars got
together <BR>&gt; to discuss possible solutions to the vexing problem
of whois. The basic <BR>&gt; issue that the amount of data that ICANN
requires registrars to display <BR>&gt; in the whois is facilitating
all sorts of undesirable behaviors like <BR>&gt; renewal scams,
data-mining, phishing, identity theft, and so on.<BR>&gt; <BR>&gt; The
result of this discussion is a proposal to rationalize the whois
<BR>&gt; data output and implement a new contact type called the
"Operational <BR>&gt; Point of Contact" or "oPOC". Complete details can
be found in the <BR>&gt; proposal itself which I've posted to my weblog
- <BR>&gt;
http://code.byte.org/blog/_archives/2005/11/28/1426464.html<BR>&gt;
<BR>&gt; We are currently seeking feedback and support for this
document. If you <BR>&gt; have any comments, please drop one of the
contributors a note. If you <BR>&gt; would like to formally support
this proposal as a signatory, please drop <BR>&gt; me a note saying
so.<BR>&gt; <BR>&gt; Thanks in advance, please let me know if you have
any questions.<BR>&gt; <BR>&gt; -ross<BR>&gt; </BLOCKQUOTE>




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

Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Cookies Policy