Re: Extension for an abuse contact in Domain objects?

On Mon, Oct 29, 2012 at 12:32 PM, Gould, James <[email protected]> wrote:
> 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?

I think I broadly concur with that line of thinking.

It seems like a valuable idea to add an anti-abuse contact at the
registrar level, which does not seem like an EPP extension.

However, adding a new object at the per-domain level would be a costly
endeavour in a number of ways, and I'm not sure how this contact ought
to be distinguished from the technical contact.

From a technical ("EPP protocol") perspective, a new contact type
wouldn't be any different from the existing types.  To make it useful
(e.g. - guaranteeing that the anti-abuse contact is somehow better
than the present technical contact) would require having a further set
of policy to enforce usefulness.
_______________________________________________
provreg mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/provreg