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

[Paul Stahura <stahura@xxxxxxxx>]

Rob, 
I agree with you

you said

>It was also clear that in thinking of how this can be solved, the committee
>is not thinking globally.  One suggestion made by them was that since all
>Registrars verify the address of the person against the credit card to
>prevent fraud, then why do they let someone put a different address on the
>whois data.    As an example, this is flawed thinking, as only the US has
>address verification abilities on their merchant processing."

I just wanted to add that it is even more complex than that because
the registrant my not have paid the registrar with a credit card or at all.
Many registrars do not sell names directly to registrants.

<snip>
>Frankly, doesn't that beg the question of why the hell Ben didn't submit
>them to ICANN as incorrect whois data ?

Maybe because for most of those, the registrants are "good guys"
and nobody has an immediate need to use/lookup/view that particular whois
information. 
Maybe the registrants made a typo, maybe they didn't want their email
addresses made public,
maybe there was an error in parsing the whois during a transfer, ie they
didn't do anything "wrong".

>From what Michael said:
"I believe the underlying focus [at the hearing] was on the failure of ICANN
registrars to
identify & correct inaccurate data, not on the need to pre-verify."

I agree that if registrars are failing in this regard, 
something should be done to bring them in compliance with the contracts.
I also agree that the "something" is not to make us all pre-verify, which
would be expensive
and not result in true data for the names that need it the most.

Paul


-----Original Message-----
From: owner-registrars@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:owner-registrars@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx]On Behalf Of Michael D. Palage
Sent: Friday, September 05, 2003 12:17 PM
To: Elana Broitman; registrars@xxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [registrars] Lawmakers Domain name oversight too lax CNET
News.com


Elana:

There were 4 members were in attendance.

Lamar Smith (very active)
Howard Berman (very active)
John Carter; (very quiet until the end when he made some rather strongly
worded statements - including a reference to his belief in strict
contractual enforcement along with a reference to his belief and support of
the death penalty. I hear he was a former judge before being elected to
Congress. Seemed like an interesting gentleman)
Tammy Baldwin (although she only asked a question about the WLS and the MOU
extension and then left)

Mike

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Elana Broitman [mailto:ebroitman@xxxxxxxxxxxx]
> Sent: Friday, September 05, 2003 11:38 AM
> To: Michael D. Palage; registrars@xxxxxxxx
> Subject: RE: [registrars] Lawmakers Domain name oversight too lax CNET
> News.com
>
>
> Mike - which Members of Congress showed up for the hearing?
>
> Thanks
>
> Elana Broitman
> Register.com
> 575 Eighth Avenue
> New York, NY 10018
> Phone (212) 798-9215
> Fax   (212) 629-9309
> ebroitman@xxxxxxxxxxxx
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Michael D. Palage [mailto:michael@xxxxxxxxxx]
> Sent: Friday, September 05, 2003 11:30 AM
> To: registrars@xxxxxxxx
> Subject: RE: [registrars] Lawmakers Domain name oversight too lax CNET
> News.com
>
>
> 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>>
> >
>
>