RE: [gnso-irtp-b-jun09] Response from ICANN Compliance re. impact of voluntarily language on 60 day lock

["Diaz, Paul" <pdiaz@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Registrant email address is NOT a required field in COM/NET

We share the pain re: the hassle of acquiring the necessary contact
information, but need to weigh the convenience vs. security aspects of
any potential changes to the current framework


-----Original Message-----
From: owner-gnso-irtp-b-jun09@xxxxxxxxx
[mailto:owner-gnso-irtp-b-jun09@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Rob Golding
Sent: Tuesday, September 21, 2010 10:51 AM
To: Gnso-irtp-b-jun09@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [gnso-irtp-b-jun09] Response from ICANN Compliance re.
impact of voluntarily language on 60 day lock


> > However for a "thin-whois" system like .com this is not trivial or
> (with any
> > level of real accuracy) automatable.
> >
> > Because the registry does not hold details of who the registrant is
> > (arguably the most important piece of information after the domain
> name
> > itself) the new registrar is (as far as I can tell) forced to
attempt
> to
> > "scrape" the details from a text dump of the public whois (when its
> > working), with varying degrees of success.
> 
> And in "thin whois" you have to do the same with all the other
contacts
> too .. not just the registrant

Yes, and it's further complicated when registrars don't put the required
data on their whois output - like no registrant email address (so how do
you
contact them ?) and even no expiry date on some !

We've written a "software as a service" checker which 'scrapes' the
common
transfers (based on those transferred to us during 2009) but the
workload to
keep upto date and to "complete" by coding for each registrars format is
potentially immense , and still no g'tee of getting the correct
information.

Fat-Whois is much better IMHO :)

Rob