RE: [gnso-ff-pdp-may08] Registrant Verification: additional language for 5.7

[Paul Stahura <Paul.Stahura@xxxxxxxx>]

George,

Before we go there, shouldn't we show that putting these (probably expensive) 
"verification" procedures in place actually prevents the bad thing (certain 
fast fluxing names in this case)?

Plus "verification" is easily defeated by the bad guys - city matches state, 
matches zip etc.

And that's only if the bad guys are really using "bad whois" when registering 
domains used in bad fast-flux activities.
Don't that bad guys actually use good whois/credit card info/etc when 
registering a fast-flux name (so it stays up longer)?

I disagree with your proposed change


-----Original Message-----
From: owner-gnso-ff-pdp-may08@xxxxxxxxx 
[mailto:owner-gnso-ff-pdp-may08@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Dave Piscitello
Sent: Monday, October 27, 2008 2:00 PM
To: George Kirikos; Fast Flux Workgroup
Subject: Re: [gnso-ff-pdp-may08] Registrant Verification: additional language 
for 5.7


HI George,



This is an important point. Perhaps you might say "additional" rather than
"stronger" and amplify by giving an example or two of the kinds of
verification procedures the GNSO should consider?


On 10/27/08 4:49 PM  Oct 27, 2008, "George Kirikos" <fastflux@xxxxxxxx>
wrote:

>
>
> Hi,
>
> In 5.7 of the document, for "active engagement" ideas (starting at
> line 926), I'd propose adding the following point, say between line
> 930 and line 931 of the current document or at line 947:
>
> - stronger registrant verification procedures
>
> Note, this can be accomplished without affecting the display of public
> WHOIS (i.e. verification takes place by registrar or registry, but
> WHOIS display is unaffected, in particular they can continue to use
> privacy services).
>
> Sincerely,
>
> George Kirikos
> www.LEAP.com