RE: [gnso-whois-study] RE: Aug 5 Meeting Recap

["Steve DelBianco" <sdelbianco@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

I see that “reported”, although I think the GAC suspects that a registrar who 
accepts obviously fraudulent (i.e. false)  registration info (e.g. Mickey 
Mouse) is also failing to actively correct the info when they receive a report 
of inaccurate WHOIS data.   None of the other GAC questions asks about how 
registrars are responding to reports of inaccuracy, so this might be the one 
place we can insert the word “reported”.  

 

Having said that, I would be glad to go with ‘detected”.   Just don’t want to 
miss the chance to suggest that the GAC cares about error correction, too.

 

--Steve

 

From: James M. Bladel [mailto:jbladel@xxxxxxxxxxx] 
Sent: Monday, August 11, 2008 3:02 PM
To: Steve DelBianco
Cc: gnso-whois-study@xxxxxxxxx; Gomes,Chuck; Liz Gasster
Subject: RE: [gnso-whois-study] RE: Aug 5 Meeting Recap

 

Steve:

Your version is much better, thanks.  

However, I would recommend we strike "or reported", since the focus of the GAC 
question appears to be on self-detection, rather than registrar response to 
external reports of fraud.

Thoughts?

J.




-------- Original Message --------
Subject: RE: [gnso-whois-study] RE: Aug 5 Meeting Recap
From: "Steve DelBianco" <sdelbianco@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, August 11, 2008 1:57 pm
To: "James M. Bladel" <jbladel@xxxxxxxxxxx>, "Gomes,Chuck"
<cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>, "Liz Gasster" <liz.gasster@xxxxxxxxx>
Cc: <gnso-whois-study@xxxxxxxxx>

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] 
        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] 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