<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
RE: [gnso-dow123] Re: [registrars] Whois Operational Point of Contact
- To: ross@xxxxxxxxxx
- Subject: RE: [gnso-dow123] Re: [registrars] Whois Operational Point of Contact
- From: Tim Ruiz <tim@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 29 Nov 2005 08:42:28 -0700
- Cc: registrars@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx, gnso-dow123@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx, Jay Westerdal <jwesterdal@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Reply-to: Tim Ruiz <tim@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Sender: owner-registrars@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
<div>Jay,</div>
<div> </div>
<div>I believe the intent of the proposal is that Registrars are
allowed to publically show the expiry date (but are not required
to). So if Registrars' customers overwhelmingly express the
concerns you raise it would seem that those Registrars would comply
with the demand.<BR><BR>Tim Ruiz<BR>VP, Domain Services<BR>The Go Daddy
Group, Inc.<BR>Office: 319-294-3940<BR>Fax: 480-247-4516<BR><A
href="mailto:tim@xxxxxxxxxxx";>tim@xxxxxxxxxxx</A><BR><BR><BR></div>
<BLOCKQUOTE style="PADDING-LEFT: 8px; MARGIN-LEFT: 8px; BORDER-LEFT:
blue 2px solid"><BR>-------- Original Message --------<BR>Subject:
[gnso-dow123] Re: [registrars] Whois Operational Point
of<BR>Contact<BR>From: Ross Rader <ross@xxxxxxxxxx><BR>Date: Tue,
November 29, 2005 9:22 am<BR>To: Jay Westerdal
<jwesterdal@xxxxxxxxxxxxx><BR>Cc: registrars@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx,
gnso-dow123@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx<BR><BR>As a general point, I think it would
be helpful if we could discuss this <BR>proposal in practical, candid
terms. You correctly point out that this <BR>proposal isn't a general
consensus. It is simply to early for that. This <BR>isn't simply the
views of large registrars though. I have discussed this <BR>proposal
with many different parties - registrars large and small,
<BR>resellers, registrants, registries and general internet users - all
with <BR>many different interests. This document represents the
consensus and <BR>interests of those that we have talked to.<BR><BR>One
of the interesting aspects of those conversations was the discovery
<BR>that those that tend to support this proposal are interested in
helping <BR>prevent abuse of personal contact data and the whois system
and to bring <BR>new utility to related applications. Those that don't
support it fall in <BR>one of two camps - they either aren't completely
informed about the <BR>subtler merits of the proposal or they are
abusing the system in some way.<BR><BR>One of the aspects of this
proposal will see the actual expiry date <BR>information (which aids
data miners and renewal scammers) replaced with <BR>enhanced status
information. i.e. instead of saying "This domain was <BR>registered on
August 12, 2001", it will simply say "ACTIVE", "PENDING <BR>EXPIRY",
"EXPIRED", and so on.<BR><BR>By enhancing the context of the status
messaging, registrants, <BR>resellers, etc. we preserve the publicly
accessible trouble-shooting and <BR>renewal tools but take some key
assets away from the data miners, <BR>renewal scammers and other
abusers.<BR><BR>Rather than using your valuable time to create a
competing proposal, it <BR>would be more useful if you would work with
us in making this one <BR>better. While there are some current points
of misunderstanding, I am <BR>sure that there are ways that we can work
together to bridge those gaps <BR>and work together on building a
consensus proposal that we can take <BR>forward together.<BR><BR>Thanks
for your input,<BR><BR>-ross<BR><BR>Jay Westerdal wrote:<BR>>
Ross,<BR>> I think the proposal looks good, except I would stress
that the expiration<BR>> date at the registry level should NOT be
phased out or removed as your<BR>> current proposal calls
for.<BR>> <BR>> Your proposal of eliminating that expiration date
field should be discussed<BR>> with domain registrants that have
large portfolios. Further outreach is<BR>> needed to achieve a
larger consensus driven approach to changing this data<BR>> element
as it effects domain owners more then it does domain
registrars.<BR>> Last time I publicly objected I had 6 or 7
registrars second my proposal to<BR>> keep the field. I heard
nothing from you until this posting but I have not<BR>> seen any
change in position or heard from you to discuss the issue since<BR>>
then. So I am not sure your current proposal is consensus driven. I
welcome<BR>> the opportunity to discuss with you the expiration date
field later this<BR>> week.<BR>> <BR>> Since the first
mentioned of this idea on the list I have been discussing<BR>> the
scenario of removing the expiration date with domain holders for
the<BR>> last two months and I have found that domain holders are
generally against<BR>> such an action. Meanwhile large registrars
are for it and small registrars<BR>> are against it. It would seem
registrants and small registrars disagree with<BR>> large registrars
on this critical field. I would ask that input be sought<BR>> from
owners of domains before this proposal goes further as well as
the<BR>> smaller registrars, some of which are not so small
actually.<BR>> <BR>> Registrants could not stress enough that
they use the expiration date field<BR>> daily. Domain Registrants
rely on this date field to be uniform and the<BR>> registry output
is the only place it can be found that is uniformly the<BR>> same.
If this proposal got ratified as it stands registrars such as
Schlund<BR>> and Melbourne IT are on the record for saying they
would stop showing the<BR>> expiration date field altogether in
their own registrar output!<BR>> <BR>> This would leave
registrants with no PUBLIC way to determine when to renew<BR>> their
domain or when it expired. The impact on Registrants would be huge.
No<BR>> hosting company, tech support, or advisor to the domain
owner without direct<BR>> username and password of a particular
domain could check the expiration<BR>> date. Even then it would not
be as efficient because a person may have<BR>> domains are several
registrars. I realize the problems Registrars face with<BR>> this
field currently is that the Registry logic confuses registrants. If
the<BR>> registries' 45 day grace expiration date confusion was
cleared up there is<BR>> no sufficient grounds to remove the
expiration date from the registry<BR>> output.<BR>> <BR>> The
additional argument that I have heard is that DROA or other like
minded<BR>> organizations use this field to trick domain owners into
transferring<BR>> registrars. With the quote, "It makes their scam
look more real to have an<BR>> expiration date listed". This theory
is not a well thought out, if a domain<BR>> owner is so easily
tricked into switching and if DROA no longer had access<BR>> to the
expiration date field then why would DROA not take the creation
date<BR>> field and add the current year. Now the end user has no
way to validate<BR>> expiration date publicly and the expiration
guess would be right 85% of the<BR>> time, would the owner not be
more likely to believe the scam now? Clearly it<BR>> is easier to
trick customers if you take away information from them. The<BR>>
registrant is more likely to believe this is their current registrar if
you<BR>> have information they believed is to be private. I reject
this whole<BR>> argument of hiding expiration date as a means to
avoiding scams. Scams will<BR>> increase not decrease by the removal
of this field. You can quote me on<BR>> that. The only solid argument
for change is the 45 day issue with registry<BR>> display being off
by a year after expiration.<BR>> <BR>> I plan to submit a
proposal to solve the expiration date confusion at the<BR>> registry
output and leave the date there, if anyone would like to be<BR>>
included in helping define such a proposal please email me and I will
setup<BR>> a separate mailing list to discuss the issue. Perhaps we
can informally meet<BR>> this week to discuss the issue offline as
well. I welcome all to<BR>> collaborate, big registrars, small
registrars, and domain owners.<BR>> <BR>> Jay Westerdal<BR>>
Name Intelligence, Inc.<BR>> http://www.nameintelligence.com
<BR>> <BR>> -----Original Message-----<BR>> From:
owner-registrars@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx<BR>>
[mailto:owner-registrars@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Ross
Rader<BR>> Sent: Monday, November 28, 2005 10:47 PM<BR>> To:
registrars@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx<BR>> Cc:
gnso-dow123@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx<BR>> Subject: [registrars] Whois
Operational Point of Contact<BR>> <BR>> Registrars,<BR>>
<BR>> In Mar del Plata, a small group of like-minded registrars got
together <BR>> to discuss possible solutions to the vexing problem
of whois. The basic <BR>> issue that the amount of data that ICANN
requires registrars to display <BR>> in the whois is facilitating
all sorts of undesirable behaviors like <BR>> renewal scams,
data-mining, phishing, identity theft, and so on.<BR>> <BR>> The
result of this discussion is a proposal to rationalize the whois
<BR>> data output and implement a new contact type called the
"Operational <BR>> Point of Contact" or "oPOC". Complete details can
be found in the <BR>> proposal itself which I've posted to my weblog
- <BR>>
http://code.byte.org/blog/_archives/2005/11/28/1426464.html<BR>>
<BR>> We are currently seeking feedback and support for this
document. If you <BR>> have any comments, please drop one of the
contributors a note. If you <BR>> would like to formally support
this proposal as a signatory, please drop <BR>> me a note saying
so.<BR>> <BR>> Thanks in advance, please let me know if you have
any questions.<BR>> <BR>> -ross<BR>> </BLOCKQUOTE>
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|