Re: Extension for an abuse contact in Domain objects?
Luis Muñoz <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.ietf.provreg |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
On Oct 29, 2012, at 11:54 AM, Michele Neylon :: Blacknight wrote: > But you're relying on "us" ie. registrars, to implement it. > > Unless a registry operator made it mandatory for us (registrars) to do this I can't see why we'd want to, as it would add extra levels of complication in terms of user interfaces etc., True, in order to work it would have to be implemented by both, Registries and Registrars. But if, as it seems, Registrars will be required to provide an Abuse point of contact, then it's arguable that allowing Registrants to provide a more direct contact (or in the worst case, allowing for a standardized mechanism to keep that information up to date) would lessen the workload of the Registrar's Abuse POC. Said implementation would be much easier if rough consensus existed beforehand. Raising awareness about this point would also help reduce redundant work and perhaps even lead to some collaboration in drafting a single extension for this task. > And it would also need to be compatible with ICANN's whois policy on whois data formatting (assuming this becomes mandatory). Absolutely. However there's nothing in the recommendations so far that is explicitly incompatible with the addition of this information. Best regards -lem _______________________________________________ provreg mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/provreg