<<<
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media, out of date the minute that they are published.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
>>>
|