[23219] in North American Network Operators' Group
RE: Internic doesn't care about valid contact information
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (mwinter@exodus.net)
Thu Mar 4 23:07:42 1999
From: mwinter@exodus.net
Date: Thu, 4 Mar 1999 20:05:49 -0800 (PST)
To: "James D. Wilson" <netsurf@sersol.com>
Cc: nanog@merit.edu, cgomes@internic.net
In-Reply-To: <001401be66b7$ba8f89d0$e5ff7fce@www.glhawaii.org>
Amazing.. I'll contact him. But the answer i got from Internic was the
don't care answer from below. I could not believe it and mailed them
again, asking them to confirm it and they confirmed it.
This is not about a single domain anyway.. I just came across this
specific one and wanted to know what the policy of Internic is if someone
points them to their own agreement and a domain which violates it.
Maybe Chuck is able to restore some faith I had into them. But I would
prefer it if everyone at Internic would follow the same policy.
- Martin Winter
On Thu, 4 Mar 1999, James D. Wilson wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
>
> Send it to Chuck Gomes, he says that they will act on ones reported to
> them.
>
>
> - -
> James D. Wilson
>
> "non sunt multiplicanda entia praeter necessitatem"
> William of Ockham (1285-1347/49)
>
>
> - -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-nanog@merit.edu [mailto:owner-nanog@merit.edu]On Behalf Of
> mwinter@exodus.net
> Sent: Thursday, March 04, 1999 4:53 PM
> To: nanog@merit.edu
> Subject: Internic doesn't care about valid contact information
>
>
> While we are at the discussion about contact information from the
> Internic...
>
> Internic doesn't care at all what you enter in the address, name,
> contact
> info etc - as long as you are paying for it.
>
> According to the agreement which you must agree to for requesting a
> domain name (http://www.internic.net/help/agreement.txt, paragraph K),
>
> you are supposed to give them the correct information.
>
> But I came accross a whois entry which was completly fake (like phone
> number of 111-111-1111, non-existing address in a non-existing city
> etc.
> The only (probably) correct part was a email address - which is one of
>
> the web-based anonymous emails.)
> I'm not talking about possible wrong (outdated) contact info - this
> case
> was clear that the person which registered the domain name didn't care
> about giving correct information and didn't hide it at all.
>
> When I mailed a copy of this to Internic and asked them how this fits
> their agreement.. I mainly got the following information:
> [...]
> "Although we are concerned about the validity of information in the
> WHOIS database, it is the responsibility of the domain name
> registrant to maintain current information. Erroneous or incorrect
> information, such as an invalid phone number or a non-functioning
> e-mail address is not just cause for cancellation of a domain name.
> Domain names are only deleted at the request of the registrant or
> via our normal billing cycles."
> [...]
>
> Oh well.. it certainly helps the Internet community if you are now
> allowed to register completly anonymous domain names.
>
> - - Martin Winter
> (speaking for himself only)
>
>
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: PGP 6.0.2
> Comment: Spammers are NetAbusers - Jail Them With The Other Criminals
>
> iQA/AwUBNt9OgjAufbtGOmgdEQIFdgCgtqJFV7cZJ+kJLSz9lZM5ayWW9akAn2BI
> KetUUB7OkCf9/aNNiSR/VSHL
> =eSS7
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>
>
