Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote:
I believe Frank's concern is that he wants the ability to
refuse services to sites who have not published accurate
contact information through whois.
Very bad idea, IMHO. But it's true that, if you refuse email
from ".com" domains, you have much less spam :-)
You confused this with .biz ;-) No, personally I don't need
this ability, maybe I would consider it as (least important)
factor in a scoring system.
No, I want a working address if abuse@ / abuse.net failed,
and a hint which steps I can skip for known "rfc-ignorants".
The whois data is the last resort.
For ICANN's gTLDs the WDPRS offers an adsitional step.
The vast majority of the ccTLD in the world have no whois
server
Not exactly. 107 have a working whois server as far as I
can judge it (excl. two with no contact data). Add some
special cases (e.g. for UK and ZA it depends on the SLD).
(check the "whois server" field in the IANA whois)
That's often obsolete / incomplete, see also:
http://lists.megacity.org/pipermail/rfci-discuss/2005-July/003568.html
BTW, privacy laws in the EU and elsewhere are one thing,
but there are also laws protecting customers, at least
"commercial" Web sites must offer contact data. For a
very broad definition of "commercial", e.g. I don't have
a domain (=> no whois data) but "must" publish contact
data on an essentially private site.
No 2119 MUST, it's a legal "must", two lawyers have three
opinions, three lawyers have six opinions, etc. ;-) But
DE is definitely a part of the EU.
Bye, Frank
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf