RE: [gnso-whois-study] FW: Your Whois study suggestion

["Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

This seems helpful and easy to fix.

Chuck


Sent from my GoodLink Wireless Handheld (www.good.com)

 -----Original Message-----
From:   Liz Gasster [mailto:liz.gasster@xxxxxxxxx]
Sent:   Tuesday, August 12, 2008 08:20 PM Eastern Standard Time
To:     gnso-whois-study@xxxxxxxxx
Subject:        [gnso-whois-study] FW: Your Whois study suggestion

All, following is the response back from Chris Paul, the individual who 
submitted study suggestion # 8.  I will incorporate this response into my 
summary report, but I am also sharing these with you as they come in.

Thanks, Liz



Sent: Tuesday, August 12, 2008 11:26 AM
To: Liz Gasster
Subject: Re: Your Whois study suggestion


Hi Liz,

The revised hypothesis is reasonably consistent except for the motivation of 
the registrars: "...to retain fees from registrations". This changes the 
meaning of the original hypothesis to the idea that the tolerance of inaccurate 
Whois data somehow allows the registrars to retain the fees paid for domains 
with falsified records. Since, I believe, registrars generally have clauses in 
their registration agreements whereby registrants agree to forfeit fees in the 
case of registrant misconduct, the accusation that registrars tolerate 
violations of whois accuracy in order to "retain fees from registrations" is 
probably not accurate. It would be more relevant to say that the motivation is 
that certain registrars tolerate inaccuracy in order to attract and retain a 
clientele that wishes to obscure its identities through falsified whois 
records. Thus, by providing an unethical service that appeals to certain 
clients, the registrars ensure an ongoing supply of revenue, since spammers 
typically register many domains and use them for short periods of time. So a 
better statement would be:

"Some Registrars knowingly tolerate inaccurate or falsified Whois data so as to 
benefit financially from registrations by spammers and other bad actors, and do 
not face deterrent consequences for doing so."

Note, I have also replaced "to" with "do" in the final clause "and to not face 
deterrent consequences for doing so", since "to" would make this mean that the 
registrar tolerates inaccuracy for the purpose of avoiding consequences, 
whereas the intended meaning is simply to state that they do not face such 
consequences.

Regards,
Chris



Submitted hypothesis:
-Falsified whois records are often associated with spammers
-Certain registrars fail to enforce whois accuracy
-These registrars benefit financially by harbouring spammers
-Registrars appear to face no consequences for unethical handling of whois 
inaccuracy

Proposed revised hypothesis drafted by GNSO study group:
Some Registrars knowingly tolerate inaccurate or falsified Whois data to retain 
fees from registrations by spammers and other bad actors, and to not face 
deterrent consequences for doing so.