From: Richard Forno (no email)
Date: Wed Jun 19 2002 - 08:32:58 EDT
Is funny that both ICANN and law enforcement are trying to clean up whois
information to facilitate investigative capabilities. What a crock.
On paper, and in theory, having 'clean' whois data is nice, and helpful for
tech problems, which is the reason I think why it's there in the first
As if nobody thought about having a 'front man' doing a registration, or
even that the Registrars will be able to truly implement such data-integrity
protocols, among any other ways to muck with this info.
I mean, garbage in, garbage out. Are they going to go door-to-door like
censustakers to verify this info?
The reality is it will never work, and besides - any smart criminal will
simply use another domain name, or not even USE a domain name.....a
power-user computer criminal shouldn't have problems remembering a few IP
addys. If they can't, they're stupid and deserve to be caught.
> From: Martin Hannigan <>
> Date: Tue, 18 Jun 2002 23:51:14 -0400 (EDT)
> To: Jake Baillie <>
> Cc: "Howard C. Berkowitz" <>, <>
> Subject: Re: ICANN requirement for "information refreshing"?
> On Tue, 18 Jun 2002, Jake Baillie wrote:
>> At 07:09 PM 6/18/2002 -0400, Howard C. Berkowitz wrote:
>>> On searching the ICANN-Verisign contract at the ICANN site, I could find
>>> no requirement for refreshing. I'm concerned this may be a covert
>>> marketing activity, since the web page for "refreshing" very easily could
>>> have led me into buying services from Verisign. This seems to be of
>>> operational interest to service providers hosting domains, if
>>> Verisign/Netsol can confuse people into shifting their service to them.
>> (from ICANN Registrar Accreditation Agreement -
>> 3.4.1 During the Term of this Agreement, Registrar shall maintain its own
>> electronic database, as updated from time to time, containing data for each
>> active Registered Name sponsored by it within each TLD for which it is
>> accredited. The data for each such registration shall include the elements
>> listed in Subsections 220.127.116.11 through 18.104.22.168; the name and (where
>> available) postal address, e-mail address, voice telephone number, and fax
>> number of the billing contact; and any other Registry Data that Registrar
>> has submitted to the Registry Operator or placed in the Registry Database
>> under Subsection 3.2.
>> I guess you could consider that email as an attempt to "maintain" their
>> database. That being said, the email I received contains a link which sends
>> me to their homepage. Not very helpful if you're clueless about such matters.
> I too got one. Define "refresh". as far as I'm read it, if my
> data is accurate, I'm all set.
> Bah. Spammers.