You are missing my point and assuming motive. I'm simply saying that the public interest will be better served if the questions are asked in terms of identifying the problems that exist and then looking for solutions to them as part of the policy development process. Your original note identified a very limited and prescriptive set of solutions which may or may not be helpful in dealing with the problems that I think you are identifying. In other words, this has little to do with whois data verification and everything to do with protecting the public, registrants, etc. from criminals who are abusing the registration system. If you want to harp on whois accuracy, that's fine - I'm not going to stand in your way, but I think if you are serious about getting something done, you will need to open up the discussion to what is likely going to be a larger range of solutions than the ones you described in your note earlier this morning. /r On Sep 14, 2009, at 10:55 AM, Danny Younger wrote:
Hi Ross,
I view time-of-registration contact data verification as a matter that is in the public interest. I tend to place the public interest ahead of registrar self-interest.
As a community we have to ask ourselves if ICANN is doing enough to make sure that contact data is reasonably accurate. At the moment such data isn't as accurate as it could be, and clearly more could be done.
This is not an unreasonable step to take, and will certainly result in some degree of improved accuracy.
What harm to the public interest do you believe would accrue if such a policy was put in place?
regards, Danny
--- On Mon, 9/14/09, Ross Rader <ross@tucows.com> wrote:
From: Ross Rader <ross@tucows.com> Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] Domain-name abuse proliferates; rogue registrars turn a blind eye To: "Danny Younger" <dannyyounger@yahoo.com> Cc: "NA Discuss" <na-discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org> Date: Monday, September 14, 2009, 9:44 AM
On Sep 14, 2009, at 9:11 AM, Danny Younger wrote:
Time-of-registration-whois-verification is a policy that is long overdue. Is the at-large prepared to bring this issue forward?
I encourage you to be thoughtful about the issues as you bring this forward.
What I mean is, try and take some time to think about the actual issue vs. a prescription. Whois data verification pre-registration will be exactly as useful as credit card billing information verification at the time of registration (which is, in my opinion, not very - the bad guys have all the data they need to pass most verification schemes).
Framing up the issue in terms of the problem (as opposed to the solution) will help focus the discussion on a range of outcomes, rather than focusing it on an already overloaded and contentious framework (whois).
/r