Re: [registrars] RE: Registrar Approval of Variable Accreditation Fee for 2003-2004

["Ken Stubbs" <kstubbs@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

suggest you change subject headers to avoid confusion
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Rick Wesson" <wessorh@xxxxxx>
To: "Tim Ruiz" <tim@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: "Registrars List" <registrars@xxxxxxxx>
Sent: Thursday, September 04, 2003 10:09 AM
Subject: RE: [registrars] RE: Registrar Approval of Variable Accreditation
Fee for 2003-2004


>
>
> > 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
> registration?
>
> -rick
>
>
> 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"
>
> see
http://boss.streamos.com/real-live/hjudiciary/4749/100_hjudiciary-live_030428.smi
>
>
>