Re: Extension for an abuse contact in Domain objects?

Is there truly a problem being solved by adding a new per-object contact
type with an abuse contact?  I'm assuming that the technical or registrant
contact can be contacted in the event of abuse at the object level.
Adding a new contact type across the registrars and registries is a large
change that would need to solve a real problem and be critical enough to
justify the change.  As far as the inclusion of a registrar level abuse
contact or a registry level abuse contact, I have the same question
whether there is a problem that needs to be solved?  Are clients currently
unable to report abuse using the registrar contact information currently
present whois?  Is this a nice to have set of information or a must have
based on a real world problem?

--
  
JG
 

 
James Gould
Principal Software Engineer
[email protected]
 
703-948-3271 (Office)
12061 Bluemont Way
Reston, VA 20190
VerisignInc.com







On 10/29/12 12:19 PM, "Luis Muñoz" <[email protected]> wrote:

>
>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