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

[Sivasubramanian M]

Impersonal addresses such as contact at domain.com do not instill trust. Form
messages without a copy (containing full text of message) to sender and a
subsequent manual response imply that the messages are not really
monitored. Template responses do not count. Any response from a donotreply
account also does not count.

It all started with the invention of the answering machine in America.

Sivasubramanian M

On Thu, Feb 14, 2019, 2:52 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 or
> 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/cpwg/attachments/20190214/1d0113a5/attachment.html>