<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
RE: [gnso-whois-study] RE: Aug 5 Meeting Recap
- To: "James M. Bladel" <jbladel@xxxxxxxxxxx>, "Gomes,Chuck" <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>, "Liz Gasster" <liz.gasster@xxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: RE: [gnso-whois-study] RE: Aug 5 Meeting Recap
- From: "Steve DelBianco" <sdelbianco@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 11 Aug 2008 14:57:17 -0400
James – all 3 of your proposed hypotheses for GAC 4 capture the policy
implications we’re trying to get to. How about one that combines all 3 of
yours:
A significant number of Registrars do not apply effective methods to detect
fraudulent domain registrations, and do not take adequate corrective measures
when fraudulent information is detected or reported.
Thanks,
Steve
From: owner-gnso-whois-study@xxxxxxxxx
[mailto:owner-gnso-whois-study@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of James M. Bladel
Sent: Monday, August 11, 2008 11:35 AM
To: Gomes,Chuck; Liz Gasster
Cc: gnso-whois-study@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [gnso-whois-study] RE: Aug 5 Meeting Recap
Chuck, Liz & Group:
Since I was tasked with Area 7, I took a swing at initial hypotheses for GAC 4
(below). These are also posted on the Wiki.
Thanks--
J.
*************************
GAC #4:
Are there methods employed by registrars to detect fraudulent domain name
registrations? If so, how successful are they and what do they do with that
information?
Hypothesis Provided:
None.
Suggested Hypotheses:
A. (Some) Registrars do not (actively) employ methods or processes to
detect fraudulent domain registrations.
B. Registrars who employ methods or processes to detect fraudulent domain
registrations are ineffective against the problem.
C. Registrars who employ methods take no action when a fraudulent
registration is detected.
*************************
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: [gnso-whois-study] RE: Aug 5 Meeting Recap
From: "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, August 07, 2008 12:22 pm
To: "Liz Gasster" <liz.gasster@xxxxxxxxx>, <gnso-whois-study@xxxxxxxxx>
Thanks Liz. Very helpful. thanks for catching the miss of GAC 4 for Area 7.
I added that to the agenda for next week.
Chuck
________________________________
From: Liz Gasster [mailto:liz.gasster@xxxxxxxxx
<mailto:liz.gasster@xxxxxxxxx> ]
Sent: Wednesday, August 06, 2008 8:55 PM
To: Gomes, Chuck; gnso-whois-study@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: Aug 5 Meeting Recap
All,
Attached please find the updated hypotheses discussed yesterday in Word
and the wiki has been updated as well.
One thing:
I added GAC suggestion #4 to area 7. It had been inadvertently omitted
and I caught it when I did my review. I developed a draft hypothesis for
discussion which I also added to the wiki.
Note: this does not include the advance work on Area 8, which we will
provide in a separate update.
Please let me know if I’ve overlooked anything.
Thanks! Liz
From: owner-gnso-whois-study@xxxxxxxxx
[mailto:owner-gnso-whois-study@xxxxxxxxx
<mailto:owner-gnso-whois-study@xxxxxxxxx> ] On Behalf Of Gomes, Chuck
Sent: Wednesday, August 06, 2008 1:12 PM
To: gnso-whois-study@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: [gnso-whois-study] Aug 5 Meeting Recap
GNSO Whois Study Hypotheses WG Meeting Recap
5 Aug 2008
1. Follow-up discussion on the following resulted in one
hypothesis revision and added notes before the hypotheses table (please refer
to the wiki):
a. Area 5: Impact of WHOIS data protection on crime and abuse
(#6, #13, GAC #11, GAC #1, GAC #2)
b. Area 6: Proxy registrar compliance with law enforcement and
dispute resolution requests (#3, #20, Metalitz comment, #12)
2. Hypotheses were developed for Area 7, Whois data accuracy (#8,
# 11)
3. Initial discussions occurred regarding Area 8, Other GAC
recommendations (GAC Data Set 1, GAC #5, GAC #6, and GAC #3).
a. Specific discussions occurred regarding GAC Data Set 1 and GAC
Data Set 2 (part of which was covered by studies in Area 1.
b. Steve DelBianco and Liz Gasster volunteered to do advance work
on Area 8 in preparation for our next meeting on Tuesday, 11 August.
Chuck
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|