ICANN/GNSO GNSO Email List Archives

[registrars]

<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

Re: [registrars] Lawmakers Domain name oversight too lax CNET News.com

  • To: Rick Wesson <wessorh@xxxxxx>
  • Subject: Re: [registrars] Lawmakers Domain name oversight too lax CNET News.com
  • From: "Ross Wm. Rader" <ross@xxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Fri, 05 Sep 2003 11:19:41 -0400
  • Cc: registrars@xxxxxxxx
  • In-reply-to: <Pine.LNX.4.33.0309050742260.28935-100000@flash.ar.com>
  • Organization: Tucows Inc.
  • References: <Pine.LNX.4.33.0309050742260.28935-100000@flash.ar.com>
  • Reply-to: ross@xxxxxxxxxx
  • Sender: owner-registrars@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.5b) Gecko/20030901 Thunderbird/0.2
On 9/5/2003 11:07 AM Rick Wesson noted that:

The name and address are verified 

<snip>

> POTS lines are physicly delivered to a physical address.

<snip>

> Names are easier to lie about than addresses with POTS systems.

<snip>

My last point is that there are zero IPR issues with name/number mappings
in the PSTN.

I'm not talking about the PSTN, POTS, cell or how easy it is for new subscribers to lie. I am talking about the compilation of phone numbers in a phone book. These compilations are, by virtue of the publication's media, out of date the minute that they are published.

Second, I'm not talking about IPR issues with name/number mappings in the DNS or the PSTN, I'm talking about the domain name Whois "infrastructure" which IPR interests and other stakeholders use as a directory service in almost precisely the same manner that they use phone books.

My point is that very little (if anything) in this world can be certified as being "real-time accurate" and that its unrealistic to expect this of the domain name Whois.

--


                       -rwr









<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>