[Rt4-whois] Huffington Post article

[Omar Kaminski]

The article attacks the lack of accuracy.

"The cops are absolutely categorical. In approaching 100% of the cases
where they have to begin a criminal investigation into anything at all
involving a dodgy web site the name and address of the owner of the
site shown in WHOIS will be false or inaccessible because it is hidden
within proxy or privacy services which have grown up willy nilly"

As I said before, our NIC.br connects br domains with official
identity numbers both for companies and individuals - so if in theory
you lie you're commiting a fraud by law like false identity. Yes, it's
almost impossible in short term to do it in a global environment
(passport numbers?). Otherwise we must stick with the owners' good
faith or worst, expect more liability for the registrars.

Omar


2012/2/17 Kathy Kleiman <kathy at kathykleiman.com>:
> I agree that we have to correct things that leave readers with a
> misimpression (whether or not it's our fault or intent).
>
> There are other calls for our report to be more specific (see e.g., Steve
> Crocker's comments to our draft report).  I think this may be refrain we
> hear in Costa Rica....
>
> Best,
> Kathy
>
> :
>
> The language in our report is correct.  The article, however, leaves the
> reader with the impression that 170 million domain names have WHOIS
> information that makes them uncontactable.
>
> J.
>
>
> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: Re: [Rt4-whois] Huffington Post article
> From: "Smith, Bill" <bill.smith at paypal-inc.com>
> Date: Fri, February 17, 2012 11:49 am
> To: "James M. Bladel" <jbladel at godaddy.com>
> Cc: Emily Taylor <emily at emilytaylor.eu>, "<rt4-whois at icann.org>"
> <rt4-whois at icann.org>
>
> James,
>
> I'm struggling to understand how our report is false. On Page 80 & 81 we
> write:
>
> As discussed in Chapter 6, in January 2009/10, ICANN published a study
> conducted by the National Opinion Research Council of the University of
> Chicago (NORC) that had been commissioned in 2009 by ICANN to obtain a
> baseline measurement of what proportion of WHOIS records are accurate.
> Examining an internationally representative sample of 1419 records, the
> Study found that, based on a strict application of the criteria, only 23% of
> records were fully accurate, though roughly twice that number met a slightly
> relaxed version of the criteria. The study also found that 21.6% of data was
> not sufficient for the registrant to be located, with either missing or
> deliberately false information.
>
> Our report makes a factual reference to an ICANN-sponsored study. Based on
> the criteria established, the study found "only 23% were fully accurate".
> Doing the math results in Carr's assertion.
>
> Of course there are other ways to interpret the data, for example; "Assuming
> 220 million domains names, the study suggests that nearly 48 million
> registrations lack sufficient information in their WHOIS records to locate
> the registrant".
>
> There are risks associated with extrapolating from a study employing a
> sample of a set. That is well known but studies like the NORC one are
> commonly employed to discern the scale of problems. The NORC study when
> combined with anecdotal evidence from Law Enforcement and others suggests
> that inaccuracy is a significant problem. I am unaware of evidence to the
> contrary.
>
> I also struggle with a requirement that our report, or we as a group need to
> dispel individual statements or perceptions of others. If we adopt that as
> an operating principle, I submit that we will spend considerable time in an
> unproductive activity.
>
> Bill
>
>
> On Feb 16, 2012, at 6:31 AM, James M. Bladel wrote:
>
> "Out of a current total of 220 million domain names only 23% are fully
> accurate. 50 million are OK. 170 million are not. "
>
> Our final report needs to do a better job of dispelling this falsehood.
>
> J.
>
> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: [Rt4-whois] Huffington Post article
> From: Emily Taylor <emily at emilytaylor.eu><mailto:emily at emilytaylor.eu>>
> Date: Thu, February 16, 2012 5:40 am
> To: rt4-whois at icann.org<mailto:rt4-whois at icann.org>
>
> http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/john-carr/whois-reading-the-whois-r_b_1272733.html
>
> --
>
>
> [http://www.etlaw.co.uk/images/stories/etlaw/etclogo250x60.gif]
>
>
>
> 76 Temple Road, Oxford OX4 2EZ UK
> t: +44 (0)1865 582 811 • m: +44 (0)7540 049 322
> emily at emilytaylor.eu<mailto:emily at emilytaylor.eu>
>
> www.etlaw.co.uk<http://www.etlaw.co.uk/>;
>
>
> Emily Taylor Consultancy Limited is a company registered in England and
> Wales No. 7630471. VAT No. 114487713.
>
> ________________________________
> _______________________________________________
> Rt4-whois mailing list
> Rt4-whois at icann.org<mailto:Rt4-whois at icann.org>
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/rt4-whois
> _______________________________________________
> Rt4-whois mailing list
> Rt4-whois at icann.org<mailto:Rt4-whois at icann.org>
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/rt4-whois
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Rt4-whois mailing list
> Rt4-whois at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/rt4-whois
>
>
>
> --
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Rt4-whois mailing list
> Rt4-whois at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/rt4-whois
>