[registration-issues-wg] [CPWG] One additional EPDP issue

Holly Raiche h.raiche at internode.on.net
Fri Feb 15 00:21:54 UTC 2019


In our response, can we at least say that a minimum requirement is for a way to contact that allows the sender to know their message was sent and received? (without specifying any particular methodology)

Holly

> On Feb 14, 2019, at 8:22 PM, Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond <ocl at gih.com> wrote:
> 
> Dear Alan,
> 
> what is the alternative? It seems that the majority of participants in the EPDP object to mandatory email addresses such as abuse at example.com <mailto:abuse at example.com> or tech at example.com <mailto:tech at example.com> because they support the ridiculous argument that someone's name could be "abuse" or "tech". When faced with such level of posturing that defies logic and when finding out that this is the view of the majority of the participants, one cannot help but thinking there are political forces at work to make domain names completely anonymous and therefore unaccountable. 
> Kindest regards,
> 
> Olivier
> 
> On 14/02/2019 06:47, Alan Greenberg wrote:
>> A bit late to integrate that and it is really an implementation, but will certainly use it as an example of something that could help ameliorate the issue.
>> 
>> Then it becomes just a grey hole?
>> 
>> Alan
>> 
>> At 13/02/2019 08:01 PM, Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond wrote:
>> 
>>> Dear Alan,
>>> 
>>> this is like lobbing correspondence over a wall... something which some of us are accustomed to. :-)
>>> More seriously though, would it be possible to require that any such correspondence using an online form needs to email a copy of the form to the enquirer's email address as well as the registrant and provide both with a unique case ID? In effect, it's a CRM system. Online businesses use that all the time. I can live with a CRM system that tracks cases even without knowing who owns the domain name.
>>> Kindest regards,
>>> 
>>> Olivier
>>> 
>>> On 13/02/2019 21:42, Alan Greenberg wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> There was bound to be one issue that we forgot today.
>>>> 
>>>> This is the fact that all communications with a registrant or tech 
>>>> contact will be via anonymized e-mail r a we form (which then is 
>>>> e-mail sent by the registrar).
>>>> 
>>>> Both are what I refer to as "black hole" communications. You
>>>> tow the 
>>>> message out and unless there is a reply, you never know if it was 
>>>> really forwarded on your behalf, whether it was received. If it 
>>>> bounced, the Registrar may know that it did, but the sender does not.
>>>> 
>>>> With a real address, you can at least use a number of tools to try to 
>>>> determine if there is a path to the mail server or if the user 
>>>> exists. Here there is nothing.
>>>> 
>>>> Alan
>>>> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> CPWG mailing list
> CPWG at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg
> _______________________________________________
> registration-issues-wg mailing list
> registration-issues-wg at atlarge-lists.icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/registration-issues-wg

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/registration-issues-wg/attachments/20190215/81329e94/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
_______________________________________________
CPWG mailing list
CPWG at icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg


More information about the registration-issues-wg mailing list