[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       rfci-discuss
Subject:    Re: [RFCI-Discuss] Rogue registrars (was Re: [Uwho] Re: draft-campbell-whois-00.txt)
From:       Hans-Martin Mosner <hmm () heeg ! de>
Date:       2002-02-11 14:16:47
Message-ID: 3C67D24F.6070706 () heeg ! de
[Download RAW message or body]

Derek Balling wrote:

> 
>> Which "them"?  Complaining to joker.com about (a) registering spammer
>> domains with blatantly false info and spammer-domain red-flags that are
>> trivial to check mechanically and
> 
> 
> Putting in a "data-verification" check would have to be done 
> across-the-board (e.g., you couldn't justify, from a legal standpoint, 
> selectively checking registrants' info). And an across-the-board 
> verification would increase the cost of domains significantly.


Nonsense. The registrar accredition agreement says that registrars must
check the validity of contact info upon registration, and when they are
informed about false contact info.
See http://www.icann.org/registrars/ra-agreement-17may01.htm paragraphs
3.7.7.1, 3.7.7.2 and 3.7.8. I've made Joker aware of this agreement and of their
failure to act according to this agreement, but they just ignore me
(like everybody except their paying customers...)

If this raises the cost of domain registration, so be it.
Do you actually believe that the current flood of domain regs
with questionable ownership and no accountability is a good thing?


> 
> For bad reg info I'd agree they should be taking an interest in that, 
> but for anything else, I'd say it's way off base to expect them to be at 
> all interested, and nor would I actually WANT them to be interested.
> 
That's all nice but they don't even do their duty as defined

by the ICANN agreement. Of course it's not their business to keep their spamming
customers from spammnig, but it's their business to keep the agreements which
are the basis for their accredition.

Cheers,
Hans-Martin


[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]