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

["Michael D. Palage" <michael@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Elana:

I was in attendance during the hearings yesterday and sat in back of Brian
Cute so he can either confirm, clarify or reject my assessment of the
hearings.

I believe the underlying focus was on the failure of ICANN registrars to
identify & correct inaccurate data, not on the need to pre-verify. Last year
when I testified before this same Committee I explained based upon my
experience how the cost of pre-verification did not justify the results
because the ease of which these mechanisms could be gamed based on then
available technology.

This year the focus was more on what registrars are doing to self police
their data to root out bad guys. Specifically, the Committee did not seem
that the current ICANN Whois third party reporting mechanism was enough. The
Committee wanted to know what registrars were doing to self police. The
question was asked how a grad student Ben Edelman could identify thousands
of false whois records and registrars couldn't or wouldn't. Ben further
stated that often it was in the registrar's interest to turn a blind eye to
Whois entries to attract porn site operators, who register thousands of
domain names at a time.

Overall most of the panelist were rather critical of Registrars' performance
to date, and one statement/question repeated numerous times by the Committee
is why hasn't ICANN deaccredited a registrar yet.

I would submit that any correspondences that suggest that registrars can't
do anything because it will be "ultimately ineffective" will fall on deaf
ears. Doing nothing is in my personal opinion not an option, as this is the
fastest road to a legislative solution. I would also remind everyone about
last year's proposed legislation that call for jail time for willfully
providing false and inaccurate Whois data. A lot of people laughed about
going to jail in connection with the registration and use of a domain name.
I am sure that Mr. Zuccarin that is currently sitting in custody does not
share this viewpoint.

I would encourage any letter submitted to have ideas on what can be done,
not a laundry list of reasons of why nothing can be done.

Just my two cents for what they are worth.

Best regards,

Mike









> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-registrars@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> [mailto:owner-registrars@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx]On Behalf Of Elana Broitman
> Sent: Friday, September 05, 2003 10:09 AM
> To: registrars@xxxxxxxx
> Subject: [registrars] Lawmakers Domain name oversight too lax CNET
> News.com
>
>
> Please note the pressure on ICANN to require more whois
> verification mandates.  This underscores the need for a registrar
> response so that law makers understand the difficulties, cost and
> ultimate ineffectiveness of additional requirements.  I will post
> shortly a draft response to submit for the record.  It is based
> on the input received from registrars.  Please review and comment
> by close of business Monday, as the House Committee must receive
> it by Wednesday morning.
>
> Regards,
>
> Elana Broitman  <<Lawmakers Domain name oversight too lax  CNET
> News.com.htm>>
>