RE: [registrars] RE: Registrar Approval of Variable Accreditation Fee for 2003-2004
- To: Tim Ruiz <tim@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: RE: [registrars] RE: Registrar Approval of Variable Accreditation Fee for 2003-2004
- From: Rick Wesson <wessorh@xxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 4 Sep 2003 07:09:43 -0700 (PDT)
- Cc: Registrars List <registrars@xxxxxxxx>
- In-reply-to: <email@example.com>
- Sender: owner-registrars@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Rick, for the me the point is that getting more precise data does not
> in any way mean that it is more accurate. The congress, and others,
> seem to be under the impression that one leads to the other. It
> doesn't. All this will lead to is a better quality of bad data. What
> is the problem that they are really trying to solve?
Tim, you confuse me.
if you assume everyone lies in their registration, the data will be no
more accurate -- folks will just learn to be more efficient in their lie.
However most registrants dont lie, if just a few percent of registrants
lie then improving the tests on registrant data quality should improve the
overall accuracy of registrant data.
It all depends on the amount of registrants that desire a fraudulent
registration. If I follow your logic it sounds like everyone wants to lie
about their registrant data. which means more precise data will not lead
to more accurate data -- and we have a much larger problem.
The question to answer what percentage of registrants lie in a domain
Subcommittee on Courts, the Internet, and Intellectual Property
2:00 p.m. in 2141 Rayburn House Office Building
Oversight Hearing on: "Internet Domain Name Fraud - - the U.S.
Government's Role in Ensuring Public Access to Accurate Whois Data"