[WHOIS-WG] Contacts' responsibilities and Public Suffixes

[Tom Vest]

Hi Carlton, 

Your argument has some merit, but only by accident; not as a matter of logic or principle.
To date, the degree of inaccuracy, incompleteness, and staleness -- whatever it may actually be -- that's embodied in the DNS whois is tolerable to the extent that it is  *only* because of the existence of a more authoritative, substantially more accurate source of registration data, i.e., the data jointly maintained by the local and regional number resource registries (RIRs, ISPs, etc.). So long as inetnum registration data and the corresponding public-facing whois services remain fresh, accurate, and timely *enough* (e.g., to assure number resource uniqueness, support technical problem solving/technical coordination, and to satisfy LEA enough so that they don't fell compelled to "clean things up" themselves), the DNS industry will probably be be able to abide a substantial degree of whois "flexibility." 

That said, if the ICANN whois policies were suddenly to disappear, you can bet that the local number registries and commercial routing service providers that would be left holding the bag would immediately impose something similar, if not more demanding, on their DNS-dependent hosting and transit customers, and probably charge the same -- or quite possible more -- for their trouble. Network and data center operators are certainly not going to simply accept the liability heat of a fully anonymized DNS system without pushing the costs right back to their source. 

As they say, you should be careful what you wish for...

TV, speaking for myself only  


On Apr 25, 2010, at 5:28 PM, Carlton Samuels wrote:

> Registrant Name:   Big Bird
> Registrant Address:  Tree #4, Limb #10
>                                Sherwood Forest
> 
> Technical Contact:    D.O.N.T  Ask, Esq.
> 
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> On Sun, Apr 25, 2010 at 4:09 PM, Michele Neylon :: Blacknight <michele at blacknight.ie> wrote:
> I fail to follow your logic
> 
> 
> Mr. Michele Neylon
> Blacknight
> http://Blacknight.tel
> 
> Via iPhone so excuse typos and brevity
> 
> On 25 Apr 2010, at 22:53, "Carlton Samuels" <carlton.samuels at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
>> Where I come from, it is a futile exercise to collect - or cause to be collected - disseminate and store invalid data. So, can we agree that if WHOIS data is to be worth more than a warm bucket of spit, it ought to be valid?
>> 
>> And can we further agree that if we conscientiously believe data validity is tangential, then conscience and reason demand its removal from the ICANN registrar contracts?
>> 
>> This would be the honest approach since it relieves ICANN of being fingered for noncompliance with its own rules, itself grist for charges of lax accountability and transparency.
>> 
>> At least those of us on the edge would be unburdened of this unseemly "wink and nod".  
>> 
>> Carlton Samuels
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> 
>> On Sat, Apr 24, 2010 at 1:45 PM, Patrick Vande Walle <patrick at vande-walle.eu> wrote:
>> 
>> On 24 Apr 2010, at 15:54, Carlton Samuels wrote:
>> 
>>> Collecting the data you suggest may have laudable objectives but I really think we should keep the required WHOIS dataset as skinny as it is currently.
>> 
>> Additionally, SSL certs include a warranty against fraudulous use of $250k.  Hence, no serious CA would dare to offer such a warranty based on unverified information from the WHOIS. 
>> They do manual, out-of-band checks, and this does have a price: SSL certs cost anything between $500 to $3000 . These manual checks allow them to guarantee the information they have about the company asking for the certificate is correct.
>> 
>>> IMHO, what we should insist on is that registrars diligently collect and record it.  And that it is validated from time to time by ICANN as a means to enforce its contract.
>> 
>> Yes we should expect registrars to make the same checks as the SSL CA's . Only they should do it for $15/yr, or else the customer will go to a competitor. 
>> What I mean is that those people who expect the WHOIS data to be accurate never explained how and who should bear the cost of the additional checks required. The SSL market shows it can be done, but the price tag is way higher. 
>> 
>> -- 
>> Patrick Vande Walle
>> Blog: http://patrick.vande-walle.eu
>> Twitter: http://twitter.vande-walle.eu
>> Facebook: http://facebook.vande-walle.eu
>> LinkedIn: http://linkedin.vande-walle.eu
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> -- 
>> +========+++++++++++++++======
>> Carlton A Samuels
>> Strategies for Education Technologies and Curriculum Development, Process Engineering & Improvement, ICT Policy, Internet Governance
>> _______________________________________________
>> 
>> WHOIS-WG mailing list
>> WHOIS-WG at atlarge-lists.icann.org
>> http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/whois-wg_atlarge-lists.icann.org
>> 
>> WHOIS WG Wiki: https://st.icann.org/gnso-liaison/index.cgi?whois_policy
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> +========+++++++++++++++======
> Carlton A Samuels
> Strategies for Education Technologies and Curriculum Development, Process Engineering & Improvement, ICT Policy, Internet Governance
> _______________________________________________
> WHOIS-WG mailing list
> WHOIS-WG at atlarge-lists.icann.org
> http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/whois-wg_atlarge-lists.icann.org
> 
> WHOIS WG Wiki: https://st.icann.org/gnso-liaison/index.cgi?whois_policy