From lem@isc.org Mon Oct 29 05:59:34 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: provreg@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: provreg@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2DE6421F8643 for ; Mon, 29 Oct 2012 05:59:34 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.299 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.299 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id DrWMizfMlHs9 for ; Mon, 29 Oct 2012 05:59:33 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mx.pao1.isc.org (mx.pao1.isc.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:0:2::2b]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C916721F861B for ; Mon, 29 Oct 2012 05:59:33 -0700 (PDT) Received: from bikeshed.isc.org (bikeshed.isc.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:3:d::19]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-CAMELLIA256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client CN "mail.isc.org", Issuer "RapidSSL CA" (not verified)) by mx.pao1.isc.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A037EC979C for ; Mon, 29 Oct 2012 12:59:23 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from lem@isc.org) Received: from lembook.lem (z65-50-116-115.ips.direcpath.com [65.50.116.115]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by bikeshed.isc.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 69AAF216C80 for ; Mon, 29 Oct 2012 12:59:23 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from lem@isc.org) From: =?iso-8859-1?Q?Luis_Mu=F1oz?= Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2012 08:59:22 -0400 Message-Id: <0AC85147-06F5-46C6-B49C-A151E09EA5AE@isc.org> To: provreg@ietf.org Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1283) X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1283) Subject: [provreg] Extension for an abuse contact in Domain objects? X-BeenThere: provreg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: EPP discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2012 12:59:34 -0000 This topic has more or less been discussed in various fora over the = years with no evident conclusions. Is there any experience with this? Is = there interest to develop an EPP extension to specify abuse contacts for = Domain (and perhaps Host) objects? Best regards -lem From michele@blacknight.com Mon Oct 29 06:22:47 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: provreg@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: provreg@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 36F7021F84B9 for ; Mon, 29 Oct 2012 06:22:47 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.21 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.21 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_05=-1.11, J_CHICKENPOX_46=0.6, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id JhIoQU3n+FDg for ; Mon, 29 Oct 2012 06:22:46 -0700 (PDT) Received: from exchange.blacknight.ie (exchange.blacknight.ie [81.17.243.252]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0CDC521F84B3 for ; Mon, 29 Oct 2012 06:22:45 -0700 (PDT) Received: from BKEXCHMBX01.blacknight.local ([fe80::76:af74:8c72:96ac]) by bkexchhubcas01.blacknight.local ([fe80::3ca9:6bf1:bd5d:24b%15]) with mapi id 14.02.0318.004; Mon, 29 Oct 2012 13:22:49 +0000 From: "Michele Neylon :: Blacknight" To: =?iso-8859-1?Q?Luis_Mu=F1oz?= , "provreg@ietf.org" Thread-Topic: [provreg] Extension for an abuse contact in Domain objects? Thread-Index: AQHNtdVIaD5Pb1BLHkKu8XLUOnLAv5fQRHuP Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2012 13:22:42 +0000 Message-ID: References: <20121029125919.456FF33C395@merlin.blacknight.ie> In-Reply-To: <20121029125919.456FF33C395@merlin.blacknight.ie> Accept-Language: en-IE, en-US Content-Language: en-IE X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [89.101.219.118] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [provreg] Extension for an abuse contact in Domain objects? X-BeenThere: provreg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: EPP discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2012 13:22:47 -0000 Luis=0A= =0A= ICANN has included an abuse contact in their proposal to registrars for a n= ew whois format:=0A= http://prague44.icann.org/meetings/prague2012/presentation-registration-dat= a-directory-whois-03jun12-en.pdf=0A= =0A= Regards=0A= =0A= Michele=0A= =0A= --=0A= Mr Michele Neylon=0A= Blacknight Solutions=0A= Hosting & Colocation, Brand Protection=0A= http://www.blacknight.com/=0A= http://blog.blacknight.com/=0A= http://mneylon.tel/=0A= Intl. +353 (0) 59 9183072=0A= Locall: 1850 929 929=0A= Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090=0A= Fax. +353 (0) 1 4811 763=0A= Twitter: http://twitter.com/mneylon=0A= -------------------------------=0A= Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty= =0A= Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,Ireland Company No.: 370845=0A= =0A= ________________________________________=0A= From: provreg-bounces@ietf.org [provreg-bounces@ietf.org] on behalf of Luis= Mu=F1oz [lem@isc.org]=0A= Sent: 29 October 2012 12:59=0A= To: provreg@ietf.org=0A= Subject: [provreg] Extension for an abuse contact in Domain objects?=0A= =0A= This topic has more or less been discussed in various fora over the years w= ith no evident conclusions. Is there any experience with this? Is there int= erest to develop an EPP extension to specify abuse contacts for Domain (and= perhaps Host) objects?=0A= =0A= Best regards=0A= =0A= -lem=0A= =0A= _______________________________________________=0A= provreg mailing list=0A= provreg@ietf.org=0A= https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/provreg=0A= From michele@blacknight.com Mon Oct 29 07:12:30 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: provreg@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: provreg@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 36A0621F8678 for ; Mon, 29 Oct 2012 07:12:30 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.955 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.955 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.744, BAYES_00=-2.599, J_CHICKENPOX_46=0.6, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Jq8iUlzlwjkK for ; Mon, 29 Oct 2012 07:12:29 -0700 (PDT) Received: from exchange.blacknight.ie (exchange.blacknight.ie [81.17.243.252]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A542421F85B8 for ; Mon, 29 Oct 2012 07:12:28 -0700 (PDT) Received: from BKEXCHMBX01.blacknight.local ([fe80::76:af74:8c72:96ac]) by bkexchhubcas01.blacknight.local ([fe80::3ca9:6bf1:bd5d:24b%15]) with mapi id 14.02.0318.004; Mon, 29 Oct 2012 14:12:32 +0000 From: "Michele Neylon :: Blacknight" To: "Gould, James" , =?iso-8859-1?Q?Luis_Mu=F1oz?= , "provreg@ietf.org" Thread-Topic: [provreg] Extension for an abuse contact in Domain objects? Thread-Index: AQHNtdVIaD5Pb1BLHkKu8XLUOnLAv5fQRHuPgAAOOoCAAABLig== Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2012 14:12:26 +0000 Message-ID: References: , <20121029141040.8B1E533C0DB@merlin.blacknight.ie> In-Reply-To: <20121029141040.8B1E533C0DB@merlin.blacknight.ie> Accept-Language: en-IE, en-US Content-Language: en-IE X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [89.101.219.118] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [provreg] Extension for an abuse contact in Domain objects? X-BeenThere: provreg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: EPP discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2012 14:12:30 -0000 James - yeah. Without giving it a huge amount of thought we'd probably just= have a standard abuse contact point in our whois template. =0A= =0A= --=0A= Mr Michele Neylon=0A= Blacknight Solutions=0A= Hosting & Colocation, Brand Protection=0A= http://www.blacknight.com/=0A= http://blog.blacknight.com/=0A= http://mneylon.tel/=0A= Intl. +353 (0) 59 9183072=0A= Locall: 1850 929 929=0A= Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090=0A= Fax. +353 (0) 1 4811 763=0A= Twitter: http://twitter.com/mneylon=0A= -------------------------------=0A= Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty= =0A= Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,Ireland Company No.: 370845=0A= =0A= ________________________________________=0A= From: Gould, James [JGould@verisign.com]=0A= Sent: 29 October 2012 14:10=0A= To: Michele Neylon :: Blacknight; Luis Mu=F1oz; provreg@ietf.org=0A= Subject: Re: [provreg] Extension for an abuse contact in Domain objects?=0A= =0A= It looks like the proposal is to include a registrar abuse contact, which= =0A= would not be directly linked from the domains. If so, this can be handled= =0A= outside of EPP.=0A= =0A= --=0A= =0A= JG=0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= James Gould=0A= Principal Software Engineer=0A= jgould@verisign.com=0A= =0A= 703-948-3271 (Office)=0A= 12061 Bluemont Way=0A= Reston, VA 20190=0A= VerisignInc.com=0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= On 10/29/12 9:22 AM, "Michele Neylon :: Blacknight"=0A= wrote:=0A= =0A= >Luis=0A= >=0A= >ICANN has included an abuse contact in their proposal to registrars for a= =0A= >new whois format:=0A= >http://prague44.icann.org/meetings/prague2012/presentation-registration-da= =0A= >ta-directory-whois-03jun12-en.pdf=0A= >=0A= >Regards=0A= >=0A= >Michele=0A= >=0A= >--=0A= >Mr Michele Neylon=0A= >Blacknight Solutions=0A= >Hosting & Colocation, Brand Protection=0A= >http://www.blacknight.com/=0A= >http://blog.blacknight.com/=0A= >http://mneylon.tel/=0A= >Intl. +353 (0) 59 9183072=0A= >Locall: 1850 929 929=0A= >Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090=0A= >Fax. +353 (0) 1 4811 763=0A= >Twitter: http://twitter.com/mneylon=0A= >-------------------------------=0A= >Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business=0A= >Park,Sleaty=0A= >Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,Ireland Company No.: 370845=0A= >=0A= >________________________________________=0A= >From: provreg-bounces@ietf.org [provreg-bounces@ietf.org] on behalf of=0A= >Luis Mu=F1oz [lem@isc.org]=0A= >Sent: 29 October 2012 12:59=0A= >To: provreg@ietf.org=0A= >Subject: [provreg] Extension for an abuse contact in Domain objects?=0A= >=0A= >This topic has more or less been discussed in various fora over the years= =0A= >with no evident conclusions. Is there any experience with this? Is there= =0A= >interest to develop an EPP extension to specify abuse contacts for Domain= =0A= >(and perhaps Host) objects?=0A= >=0A= >Best regards=0A= >=0A= >-lem=0A= >=0A= >_______________________________________________=0A= >provreg mailing list=0A= >provreg@ietf.org=0A= >https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/provreg=0A= >_______________________________________________=0A= >provreg mailing list=0A= >provreg@ietf.org=0A= >https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/provreg=0A= =0A= From JGould@verisign.com Mon Oct 29 07:28:16 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: provreg@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: provreg@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4CC1421F8526 for ; Mon, 29 Oct 2012 07:28:16 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -6.299 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.299 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id MiqGGi4NGs1l for ; Mon, 29 Oct 2012 07:28:15 -0700 (PDT) Received: from exprod6og117.obsmtp.com (exprod6og117.obsmtp.com [64.18.1.39]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2325C21F843A for ; Mon, 29 Oct 2012 07:28:15 -0700 (PDT) Received: from osprey.verisign.com ([216.168.239.75]) (using TLSv1) by exprod6ob117.postini.com ([64.18.5.12]) with SMTP ID DSNKUI6Sfm2iVU3GW6mYtztp3//i/joeW4c/@postini.com; Mon, 29 Oct 2012 07:28:15 PDT Received: from BRN1WNEXCHM01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com (brn1wnexchm01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com [10.173.152.255]) by osprey.verisign.com (8.13.6/8.13.4) with ESMTP id q9TEAkad027958 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Mon, 29 Oct 2012 10:10:47 -0400 Received: from BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com ([::1]) by BRN1WNEXCHM01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com ([::1]) with mapi id 14.02.0318.004; Mon, 29 Oct 2012 10:10:46 -0400 From: "Gould, James" To: "Michele Neylon :: Blacknight" , =?iso-8859-1?Q?Luis_Mu=F1oz?= , "provreg@ietf.org" Thread-Topic: [provreg] Extension for an abuse contact in Domain objects? Thread-Index: AQHNtdVIHgThbMA+rEmNRmU0Ry1cp5fQRHuPgAAOLQA= Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2012 14:10:45 +0000 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/14.13.0.110805 x-originating-ip: [10.173.152.4] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-ID: <32FA0E13B2E38943946EC35D8AD88E30@verisign.com> Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [provreg] Extension for an abuse contact in Domain objects? X-BeenThere: provreg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: EPP discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2012 14:28:16 -0000 It looks like the proposal is to include a registrar abuse contact, which would not be directly linked from the domains. If so, this can be handled outside of EPP. =20 -- =20 JG =20 =20 James Gould Principal Software Engineer jgould@verisign.com =20 703-948-3271 (Office) 12061 Bluemont Way Reston, VA 20190 VerisignInc.com On 10/29/12 9:22 AM, "Michele Neylon :: Blacknight" wrote: >Luis > >ICANN has included an abuse contact in their proposal to registrars for a >new whois format: >http://prague44.icann.org/meetings/prague2012/presentation-registration-da >ta-directory-whois-03jun12-en.pdf > >Regards > >Michele > >-- >Mr Michele Neylon >Blacknight Solutions >Hosting & Colocation, Brand Protection >http://www.blacknight.com/ >http://blog.blacknight.com/ >http://mneylon.tel/ >Intl. +353 (0) 59 9183072 >Locall: 1850 929 929 >Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090 >Fax. +353 (0) 1 4811 763 >Twitter: http://twitter.com/mneylon >------------------------------- >Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business >Park,Sleaty >Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,Ireland Company No.: 370845 > >________________________________________ >From: provreg-bounces@ietf.org [provreg-bounces@ietf.org] on behalf of >Luis Mu=F1oz [lem@isc.org] >Sent: 29 October 2012 12:59 >To: provreg@ietf.org >Subject: [provreg] Extension for an abuse contact in Domain objects? > >This topic has more or less been discussed in various fora over the years >with no evident conclusions. Is there any experience with this? Is there >interest to develop an EPP extension to specify abuse contacts for Domain >(and perhaps Host) objects? > >Best regards > >-lem > >_______________________________________________ >provreg mailing list >provreg@ietf.org >https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/provreg >_______________________________________________ >provreg mailing list >provreg@ietf.org >https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/provreg From lem@isc.org Mon Oct 29 07:40:20 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: provreg@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: provreg@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 910EF21F8716 for ; Mon, 29 Oct 2012 07:40:20 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.299 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.299 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id CpzXGYo-U9JS for ; Mon, 29 Oct 2012 07:40:20 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mx.pao1.isc.org (mx.pao1.isc.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:0:2::2b]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 324BC21F86F3 for ; Mon, 29 Oct 2012 07:40:20 -0700 (PDT) Received: from bikeshed.isc.org (bikeshed.isc.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:3:d::19]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-CAMELLIA256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client CN "mail.isc.org", Issuer "RapidSSL CA" (not verified)) by mx.pao1.isc.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 04ED5C9A52; Mon, 29 Oct 2012 14:40:06 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from lem@isc.org) Received: from lembook.lem (z65-50-116-115.ips.direcpath.com [65.50.116.115]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by bikeshed.isc.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 8C082216C3D; Mon, 29 Oct 2012 14:40:00 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from lem@isc.org) Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1283) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 From: =?iso-8859-1?Q?Luis_Mu=F1oz?= In-Reply-To: Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2012 10:39:58 -0400 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <82716103-5A0C-4CD7-B6EC-1215D8303416@isc.org> References: , <20121029141040.8B1E533C0DB@merlin.blacknight.ie> To: "Michele Neylon :: Blacknight" X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1283) Cc: "provreg@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [provreg] Extension for an abuse contact in Domain objects? X-BeenThere: provreg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: EPP discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2012 14:40:20 -0000 On Oct 29, 2012, at 10:12 AM, Michele Neylon :: Blacknight wrote: > James - yeah. Without giving it a huge amount of thought we'd probably = just have a standard abuse contact point in our whois template.=20 In this case, the contact would point to the Registrar -- handling this = at the template level is certainly one way to go. However, I was thinking along the lines of a per-object abuse contact = that would point to the Registrant. Best regards -lem From michele@blacknight.com Mon Oct 29 07:51:03 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: provreg@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: provreg@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5BD0321F8709 for ; Mon, 29 Oct 2012 07:51:03 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.327 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.327 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.372, BAYES_00=-2.599, J_CHICKENPOX_46=0.6, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id xVp6mwcJ9Aqj for ; Mon, 29 Oct 2012 07:51:02 -0700 (PDT) Received: from exchange.blacknight.ie (exchange.blacknight.ie [81.17.243.252]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 17F1821F8661 for ; Mon, 29 Oct 2012 07:51:01 -0700 (PDT) Received: from BKEXCHMBX01.blacknight.local ([fe80::76:af74:8c72:96ac]) by bkexchhubcas01.blacknight.local ([fe80::3ca9:6bf1:bd5d:24b%15]) with mapi id 14.02.0318.004; Mon, 29 Oct 2012 14:51:06 +0000 From: "Michele Neylon :: Blacknight" To: =?iso-8859-1?Q?Luis_Mu=F1oz?= Thread-Topic: [provreg] Extension for an abuse contact in Domain objects? Thread-Index: AQHNtdVIaD5Pb1BLHkKu8XLUOnLAv5fQRHuPgAAOOoCAAABLioAAB98AgAACmIM= Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2012 14:50:59 +0000 Message-ID: References: , <20121029141040.8B1E533C0DB@merlin.blacknight.ie> , <20121029143959.A365233C041@merlin.blacknight.ie> In-Reply-To: <20121029143959.A365233C041@merlin.blacknight.ie> Accept-Language: en-IE, en-US Content-Language: en-IE X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [89.101.219.118] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Cc: "provreg@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [provreg] Extension for an abuse contact in Domain objects? X-BeenThere: provreg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: EPP discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2012 14:51:03 -0000 Luis=0A= =0A= Most of our registrants wouldn't know what what to do with an abuse report.= As a hosting provider and registrar we end up having to pro-actively conta= ct our clients when there are issues and explain to them in simple terms ho= w to remedy them.=0A= While I can see that kind of thing being of use to the more technically min= ded registrant I'd imagine that they're in a minority and would probably be= more likely to have some kind of reseller access if they were registering = larger number of domains .. =0A= =0A= Regards=0A= =0A= Michele=0A= --=0A= Mr Michele Neylon=0A= Blacknight Solutions=0A= Hosting & Colocation, Brand Protection=0A= http://www.blacknight.com/=0A= http://blog.blacknight.com/=0A= http://mneylon.tel/=0A= Intl. +353 (0) 59 9183072=0A= Locall: 1850 929 929=0A= Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090=0A= Fax. +353 (0) 1 4811 763=0A= Twitter: http://twitter.com/mneylon=0A= -------------------------------=0A= Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty= =0A= Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,Ireland Company No.: 370845=0A= =0A= ________________________________________=0A= From: Luis Mu=F1oz [lem@isc.org]=0A= Sent: 29 October 2012 14:39=0A= To: Michele Neylon :: Blacknight=0A= Cc: Gould, James; provreg@ietf.org=0A= Subject: Re: [provreg] Extension for an abuse contact in Domain objects?=0A= =0A= On Oct 29, 2012, at 10:12 AM, Michele Neylon :: Blacknight wrote:=0A= =0A= > James - yeah. Without giving it a huge amount of thought we'd probably ju= st have a standard abuse contact point in our whois template.=0A= =0A= In this case, the contact would point to the Registrar -- handling this at = the template level is certainly one way to go.=0A= =0A= However, I was thinking along the lines of a per-object abuse contact that = would point to the Registrant.=0A= =0A= Best regards=0A= =0A= -lem=0A= =0A= From JGould@verisign.com Mon Oct 29 07:53:55 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: provreg@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: provreg@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9EAF421F8712 for ; Mon, 29 Oct 2012 07:53:55 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -6.299 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.299 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id DDwA5xSOJppv for ; Mon, 29 Oct 2012 07:53:54 -0700 (PDT) Received: from exprod6og111.obsmtp.com (exprod6og111.obsmtp.com [64.18.1.27]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4A11D21F8708 for ; Mon, 29 Oct 2012 07:53:42 -0700 (PDT) Received: from osprey.verisign.com ([216.168.239.75]) (using TLSv1) by exprod6ob111.postini.com ([64.18.5.12]) with SMTP ID DSNKUI6YdYxPvOTTQohiUphIT5tPOq4IAZwH@postini.com; Mon, 29 Oct 2012 07:53:44 PDT Received: from BRN1WNEXCHM01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com (brn1wnexchm01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com [10.173.152.255]) by osprey.verisign.com (8.13.6/8.13.4) with ESMTP id q9TErc5e029723 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Mon, 29 Oct 2012 10:53:38 -0400 Received: from BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com ([::1]) by BRN1WNEXCHM01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com ([::1]) with mapi id 14.02.0318.004; Mon, 29 Oct 2012 10:53:38 -0400 From: "Gould, James" To: =?iso-8859-1?Q?Luis_Mu=F1oz?= , "Michele Neylon :: Blacknight" Thread-Topic: [provreg] Extension for an abuse contact in Domain objects? Thread-Index: AQHNtdVIHgThbMA+rEmNRmU0Ry1cp5fQRHuPgAAOOoCAAABLioAASu0A///AtIA= Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2012 14:53:37 +0000 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <82716103-5A0C-4CD7-B6EC-1215D8303416@isc.org> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/14.13.0.110805 x-originating-ip: [10.173.152.4] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-ID: Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Cc: "provreg@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [provreg] Extension for an abuse contact in Domain objects? X-BeenThere: provreg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: EPP discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2012 14:53:55 -0000 It doesn't look like an object level contact reference. If a Registrar has an abuse contact linked to it or embedded in it, than the abuse contact information to include in whois can be automatically derived from the sponsoring registrar without having to explicitly set another contact on a per object basis. -- =20 JG =20 =20 James Gould Principal Software Engineer jgould@verisign.com =20 703-948-3271 (Office) 12061 Bluemont Way Reston, VA 20190 VerisignInc.com On 10/29/12 10:39 AM, "Luis Mu=F1oz" wrote: > >On Oct 29, 2012, at 10:12 AM, Michele Neylon :: Blacknight wrote: > >> James - yeah. Without giving it a huge amount of thought we'd probably >>just have a standard abuse contact point in our whois template. > >In this case, the contact would point to the Registrar -- handling this >at the template level is certainly one way to go. > >However, I was thinking along the lines of a per-object abuse contact >that would point to the Registrant. > >Best regards > >-lem > From lem@isc.org Mon Oct 29 08:37:24 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: provreg@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: provreg@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C4D8321F8738 for ; Mon, 29 Oct 2012 08:37:24 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.299 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.299 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id pV1sf1mhBpbv for ; Mon, 29 Oct 2012 08:37:24 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mx.ams1.isc.org (mx.ams1.isc.org [IPv6:2001:500:60::65]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 51D4521F8737 for ; Mon, 29 Oct 2012 08:37:24 -0700 (PDT) Received: from bikeshed.isc.org (bikeshed.isc.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:3:d::19]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-CAMELLIA256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client CN "mail.isc.org", Issuer "RapidSSL CA" (not verified)) by mx.ams1.isc.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 101F45F9DCA; Mon, 29 Oct 2012 15:37:17 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from lem@isc.org) Received: from lembook.lem (z65-50-116-115.ips.direcpath.com [65.50.116.115]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by bikeshed.isc.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 2D66F216C3D; Mon, 29 Oct 2012 15:37:15 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from lem@isc.org) Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1283) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 From: =?iso-8859-1?Q?Luis_Mu=F1oz?= In-Reply-To: Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2012 11:37:13 -0400 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <0A8B0E7A-0616-4D0B-A21C-30453818F9F1@isc.org> References: To: "Gould, James" X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1283) Cc: "provreg@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [provreg] Extension for an abuse contact in Domain objects? X-BeenThere: provreg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: EPP discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2012 15:37:24 -0000 On Oct 29, 2012, at 10:53 AM, Gould, James wrote: > It doesn't look like an object level contact reference. If a = Registrar > has an abuse contact linked to it or embedded in it, than the abuse > contact information to include in whois can be automatically derived = from > the sponsoring registrar without having to explicitly set another = contact > on a per object basis. I think those are different points of contact. A Registrar can have an = abuse contact to deal with issues with (unresponsive?) Registrants. = However, I'm more interested in giving the Registrant a mechanism to = publish its own abuse contacts. Best regards -lem From lem@isc.org Mon Oct 29 08:47:59 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: provreg@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: provreg@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2CE0321F842A for ; Mon, 29 Oct 2012 08:47:59 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.299 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.299 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id BiuR2u7nEbEj for ; Mon, 29 Oct 2012 08:47:58 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mx.ams1.isc.org (mx.ams1.isc.org [IPv6:2001:500:60::65]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 52E5721F8231 for ; Mon, 29 Oct 2012 08:47:58 -0700 (PDT) Received: from bikeshed.isc.org (bikeshed.isc.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:3:d::19]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-CAMELLIA256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client CN "mail.isc.org", Issuer "RapidSSL CA" (not verified)) by mx.ams1.isc.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3AF5A5F9DCB; Mon, 29 Oct 2012 15:47:51 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from lem@isc.org) Received: from lembook.lem (z65-50-116-115.ips.direcpath.com [65.50.116.115]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by bikeshed.isc.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 1B866216C3D; Mon, 29 Oct 2012 15:47:49 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from lem@isc.org) Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1283) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 From: =?iso-8859-1?Q?Luis_Mu=F1oz?= In-Reply-To: Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2012 11:47:46 -0400 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <5BA46F78-B6D9-4BB8-9601-B048E8E77583@isc.org> References: , <20121029141040.8B1E533C0DB@merlin.blacknight.ie> , <20121029143959.A365233C041@merlin.blacknight.ie> To: Michele@isc.org, "Neylon:"@isc.org:Blacknight X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1283) Cc: "provreg@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [provreg] Extension for an abuse contact in Domain objects? X-BeenThere: provreg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: EPP discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2012 15:47:59 -0000 On Oct 29, 2012, at 10:50 AM, Michele Neylon :: Blacknight wrote: > Most of our registrants wouldn't know what what to do with an abuse = report. As a hosting provider and registrar we end up having to = pro-actively contact our clients when there are issues and explain to = them in simple terms how to remedy them. > While I can see that kind of thing being of use to the more = technically minded registrant I'd imagine that they're in a minority and = would probably be more likely to have some kind of reseller access if = they were registering larger number of domains ..=20 Yes, the technical illiteracy argument is a very powerful deterrent. The = same argument could be made about Tech contacts and the like, which in = many cases end up being handled by a (hopefully better) informed third = party. IMO this would be a point against a "mandatory" contact. I think having an optional abuse contact defined for Domain objects = would allow knowledgeable Registrants a mechanism to advertise the = existence of this POC (and to some extend, a working abuse contact could = be a data point in and on itself). Less inclined Registrants could = simply refrain from providing this information, so the fallback would be = the current status quo. More competent Registrants would use this optional POC to advertise = their preferred email for receiving complaints, sparing hosting = technical contacts -- which in many cases belong to different = organizational structures -- from having to sort through reports = destined for other groups. Certainly having a "back-office" solution (via web UI or an off-band = process) to manage this type of contact information would work for = smaller volumes, but having API support for this would negate the need = to provide such access for this purpose. Current resellers would then = use the existing interfaces to provision this information just as they = do with the rest of their contact data. Best regards -lem From michele@blacknight.com Mon Oct 29 08:54:27 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: provreg@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: provreg@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CAEDB21F86E8 for ; Mon, 29 Oct 2012 08:54:27 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.451 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.451 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.248, BAYES_00=-2.599, J_CHICKENPOX_46=0.6, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id bPnon8OVUajr for ; Mon, 29 Oct 2012 08:54:27 -0700 (PDT) Received: from exchange.blacknight.ie (exchange.blacknight.ie [81.17.243.252]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7BF7D21F872A for ; Mon, 29 Oct 2012 08:54:26 -0700 (PDT) Received: from BKEXCHMBX01.blacknight.local ([fe80::76:af74:8c72:96ac]) by bkexchhubcas01.blacknight.local ([fe80::3ca9:6bf1:bd5d:24b%15]) with mapi id 14.02.0318.004; Mon, 29 Oct 2012 15:54:30 +0000 From: "Michele Neylon :: Blacknight" To: =?iso-8859-1?Q?Luis_Mu=F1oz?= Thread-Topic: [provreg] Extension for an abuse contact in Domain objects? Thread-Index: AQHNtdVIaD5Pb1BLHkKu8XLUOnLAv5fQRHuPgAAOOoCAAABLioAAB98AgAACmIOAABBZAIAAASK5 Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2012 15:54:23 +0000 Message-ID: References: , <20121029141040.8B1E533C0DB@merlin.blacknight.ie> , <20121029143959.A365233C041@merlin.blacknight.ie> , <20121029154741.A18CA33C367@merlin.blacknight.ie> In-Reply-To: <20121029154741.A18CA33C367@merlin.blacknight.ie> Accept-Language: en-IE, en-US Content-Language: en-IE X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [89.101.219.118] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Cc: "provreg@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [provreg] Extension for an abuse contact in Domain objects? X-BeenThere: provreg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: EPP discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2012 15:54:27 -0000 Luis=0A= =0A= But you're relying on "us" ie. registrars, to implement it.=0A= =0A= 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.,=0A= =0A= And it would also need to be compatible with ICANN's whois policy on whois = data formatting (assuming this becomes mandatory). =0A= =0A= Regards=0A= =0A= Michele=0A= =0A= --=0A= Mr Michele Neylon=0A= Blacknight Solutions=0A= Hosting & Colocation, Brand Protection=0A= http://www.blacknight.com/=0A= http://blog.blacknight.com/=0A= http://mneylon.tel/=0A= Intl. +353 (0) 59 9183072=0A= Locall: 1850 929 929=0A= Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090=0A= Fax. +353 (0) 1 4811 763=0A= Twitter: http://twitter.com/mneylon=0A= -------------------------------=0A= Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty= =0A= Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,Ireland Company No.: 370845=0A= =0A= ________________________________________=0A= From: Luis Mu=F1oz [lem@isc.org]=0A= Sent: 29 October 2012 15:47=0A= To: Michele@isc.org; Neylon:@=0A= Cc: Gould, James; provreg@ietf.org=0A= Subject: Re: [provreg] Extension for an abuse contact in Domain objects?=0A= =0A= On Oct 29, 2012, at 10:50 AM, Michele Neylon :: Blacknight wrote:=0A= =0A= > Most of our registrants wouldn't know what what to do with an abuse repor= t. As a hosting provider and registrar we end up having to pro-actively con= tact our clients when there are issues and explain to them in simple terms = how to remedy them.=0A= > While I can see that kind of thing being of use to the more technically m= inded registrant I'd imagine that they're in a minority and would probably = be more likely to have some kind of reseller access if they were registerin= g larger number of domains ..=0A= =0A= Yes, the technical illiteracy argument is a very powerful deterrent. The sa= me argument could be made about Tech contacts and the like, which in many c= ases end up being handled by a (hopefully better) informed third party. IMO= this would be a point against a "mandatory" contact.=0A= =0A= I think having an optional abuse contact defined for Domain objects would a= llow knowledgeable Registrants a mechanism to advertise the existence of th= is POC (and to some extend, a working abuse contact could be a data point i= n and on itself). Less inclined Registrants could simply refrain from provi= ding this information, so the fallback would be the current status quo.=0A= =0A= More competent Registrants would use this optional POC to advertise their p= referred email for receiving complaints, sparing hosting technical contacts= -- which in many cases belong to different organizational structures -- fr= om having to sort through reports destined for other groups.=0A= =0A= Certainly having a "back-office" solution (via web UI or an off-band proces= s) to manage this type of contact information would work for smaller volum= es, but having API support for this would negate the need to provide such a= ccess for this purpose. Current resellers would then use the existing inter= faces to provision this information just as they do with the rest of their = contact data.=0A= =0A= Best regards=0A= =0A= -lem=0A= =0A= From lem@isc.org Mon Oct 29 09:19:22 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: provreg@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: provreg@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B88DA21F871C for ; Mon, 29 Oct 2012 09:19:22 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.299 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.299 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id a6biZElDPKvs for ; Mon, 29 Oct 2012 09:19:22 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mx.ams1.isc.org (mx.ams1.isc.org [IPv6:2001:500:60::65]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3007221F86C3 for ; Mon, 29 Oct 2012 09:19:22 -0700 (PDT) Received: from bikeshed.isc.org (bikeshed.isc.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:3:d::19]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-CAMELLIA256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client CN "mail.isc.org", Issuer "RapidSSL CA" (not verified)) by mx.ams1.isc.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5F4375F9DD7; Mon, 29 Oct 2012 16:19:15 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from lem@isc.org) Received: from lembook.lem (z65-50-116-115.ips.direcpath.com [65.50.116.115]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by bikeshed.isc.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 5C87B216C3D; Mon, 29 Oct 2012 16:19:13 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from lem@isc.org) Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1283) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 From: =?iso-8859-1?Q?Luis_Mu=F1oz?= In-Reply-To: Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2012 12:19:12 -0400 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <95F7C4B8-EC29-4E2D-8025-EAD5E4036632@isc.org> References: , <20121029141040.8B1E533C0DB@merlin.blacknight.ie> , <20121029143959.A365233C041@merlin.blacknight.ie> , <20121029154741.A18CA33C367@merlin.blacknight.ie> To: Michele@isc.org, "Neylon:"@isc.org:Blacknight X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1283) Cc: "provreg@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [provreg] Extension for an abuse contact in Domain objects? X-BeenThere: provreg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: EPP discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2012 16:19:22 -0000 On Oct 29, 2012, at 11:54 AM, Michele Neylon :: Blacknight wrote: > But you're relying on "us" ie. registrars, to implement it. >=20 > 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).=20 Absolutely. However there's nothing in the recommendations so far that = is explicitly incompatible with the addition of this information. Best regards -lem From JGould@verisign.com Mon Oct 29 09:33:08 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: provreg@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: provreg@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E61A821F8661 for ; Mon, 29 Oct 2012 09:33:08 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -6.299 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.299 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 7MppDoUtNtZ2 for ; Mon, 29 Oct 2012 09:33:08 -0700 (PDT) Received: from exprod6og109.obsmtp.com (exprod6og109.obsmtp.com [64.18.1.23]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 58E0721F81FE for ; Mon, 29 Oct 2012 09:33:05 -0700 (PDT) Received: from peregrine.verisign.com ([216.168.239.74]) (using TLSv1) by exprod6ob109.postini.com ([64.18.5.12]) with SMTP ID DSNKUI6vwC6FM2YiXlWjFpol6C72g7VFkq0u@postini.com; Mon, 29 Oct 2012 09:33:07 PDT Received: from brn1wnexcas01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com (brn1wnexcas01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com [10.173.152.205]) by peregrine.verisign.com (8.13.6/8.13.4) with ESMTP id q9TGWvS4030089 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Mon, 29 Oct 2012 12:33:01 -0400 Received: from BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com ([::1]) by brn1wnexcas01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com ([::1]) with mapi id 14.02.0318.004; Mon, 29 Oct 2012 12:32:57 -0400 From: "Gould, James" To: =?iso-8859-1?Q?Luis_Mu=F1oz?= , "Michele@isc.org" , "\"Neylon:\"@isc.org : Blacknight ;" Thread-Topic: [provreg] Extension for an abuse contact in Domain objects? Thread-Index: AQHNtdVIHgThbMA+rEmNRmU0Ry1cp5fQRHuPgAAOOoCAAABLioAAB98AgAACmIOAABBZAIAAASK5gABKtAD//8C3gA== Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2012 16:32:57 +0000 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <95F7C4B8-EC29-4E2D-8025-EAD5E4036632@isc.org> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/14.13.0.110805 x-originating-ip: [10.173.152.4] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-ID: <64B29D1186A43D4BA98FE4FAEA3D69E1@verisign.com> Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Cc: "provreg@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [provreg] Extension for an abuse contact in Domain objects? X-BeenThere: provreg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: EPP discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2012 16:33:09 -0000 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? -- =20 JG =20 =20 James Gould Principal Software Engineer jgould@verisign.com =20 703-948-3271 (Office) 12061 Bluemont Way Reston, VA 20190 VerisignInc.com On 10/29/12 12:19 PM, "Luis Mu=F1oz" wrote: > >On Oct 29, 2012, at 11:54 AM, Michele Neylon :: Blacknight wrote: > >> But you're relying on "us" ie. registrars, to implement it. >>=20 >> 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 > From lem@isc.org Mon Oct 29 09:56:58 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: provreg@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: provreg@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 01D5221F8743 for ; Mon, 29 Oct 2012 09:56:58 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.299 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.299 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 0skpPUz5JMVv for ; Mon, 29 Oct 2012 09:56:56 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mx.pao1.isc.org (mx.pao1.isc.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:0:2::2b]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C03F221F8711 for ; Mon, 29 Oct 2012 09:56:56 -0700 (PDT) Received: from bikeshed.isc.org (bikeshed.isc.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:3:d::19]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-CAMELLIA256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client CN "mail.isc.org", Issuer "RapidSSL CA" (not verified)) by mx.pao1.isc.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CD965C9A63; Mon, 29 Oct 2012 16:56:49 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from lem@isc.org) Received: from lembook.lem (z65-50-116-115.ips.direcpath.com [65.50.116.115]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by bikeshed.isc.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 75C3A216C3D; Mon, 29 Oct 2012 16:56:49 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from lem@isc.org) Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1283) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 From: =?iso-8859-1?Q?Luis_Mu=F1oz?= In-Reply-To: Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2012 12:56:48 -0400 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <0D61D93B-C198-45BC-B621-52C54CFA0E2B@isc.org> References: To: "Gould, James" X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1283) Cc: provreg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [provreg] Extension for an abuse contact in Domain objects? X-BeenThere: provreg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: EPP discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2012 16:56:58 -0000 On Oct 29, 2012, at 12:32 PM, Gould, James wrote: > Is there truly a problem being solved by adding a new per-object = contact > type with an abuse contact? Definitely. Sites like abuse.net exist to fill the gap, with varied = levels of success. The gradual implementation of abuse contacts at the = RIR level would also suggest the problem is real. > I'm assuming that the technical or registrant > contact can be contacted in the event of abuse at the object level. Yes, and that is precisely part of the problem. A Domain object has three contacts: A "Registrant", a "Technical" and an = "Administrative" contact. Which one is the right one for abuse = complaints? In my experience, I've seen that the community tends to = choose the technical contact. For operations where this is the wrong choice, this means that special = arrangements need to be made for mail to be forwarded to the right = people in order to act on the complaints, which more often than not = results in complaints that reach nowhere. I'm sure we can all setup mail = forwarding with out hands tied, but apparently this is a very rare = skill. This trend is so prevalent, that many Registrants simply opted to use = abuse@ as their tech contact. Here, the problem happens the other way = around: Technical issues need to be extracted out of the sea of = complaints. Now, if there were a dedicated point of contact for abuse, each area = would receive the messages they need and be able to easily act on them. > 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. Which is why I would argue it should be defined as optional and = implemented by interested parties. I have no doubt that over time this = will be mandatory due to operational needs. > [...] Is this a nice to have set of information or a must have > based on a real world problem? There would be far less firewall rules if we had a mechanism like this = in place. What happens now is that an abuse complaint is fired, no = response is received, abuse continues, firewall rule is added. To some, = this resolves the problem. However, this is not a sustainable strategy. Best regards -lem From cbbrowne@afilias.info Mon Oct 29 09:58:50 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: provreg@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: provreg@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5135321F86CD for ; Mon, 29 Oct 2012 09:58:50 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.977 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.977 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id PJbEIepfPcOU for ; Mon, 29 Oct 2012 09:58:49 -0700 (PDT) Received: from outbound.afilias.info (outbound.afilias.info [66.199.183.4]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B5FFD21F8678 for ; Mon, 29 Oct 2012 09:58:49 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ms5.on1.afilias-ops.info ([10.109.8.9] helo=smtp.afilias.info) by outbound.afilias.info with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1TSsfp-0003JH-3V for provreg@ietf.org; Mon, 29 Oct 2012 16:58:49 +0000 Received: from mail-qc0-f198.google.com ([209.85.216.198]) by smtp.afilias.info with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1TSsfp-0001WU-3G for provreg@ietf.org; Mon, 29 Oct 2012 16:58:49 +0000 Received: by mail-qc0-f198.google.com with SMTP id e13so8026090qcs.1 for ; Mon, 29 Oct 2012 09:58:43 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type:x-gm-message-state; bh=EpMSK9fJsTJUMZR/bhCgH1l5cedrbiXgFYtHy+065rs=; b=I5l5ig7aXVREpkc6+Whv1zJR5/AOcyOmMVpMOJvEGEjL5hJZYVuHng8LrM5MpBMmt0 HdI3vSHWBTF6yTaeZFyaoM11Mys6Ln46caSXth2unII7g/Ig7Zw/PZ4nP/xSuYb81crT OZHZZvn4BTYSq0SIpH3fF+2fN5CG5qnVle7PAhmg5hCN/TEbhwBs4gcKvy24H4bg5p9S FGeFiBOUWAOqtGTkBfepaTBG6+ymUEC1J8Qf46rLaKbcQMftK2FKwJzO8ZMck21ExYI7 +U/8Gk5MpiW1ydfufsACnxVpKucJ5V9nRC4ZNIppntZhRBPelXc7suvIjUYW86UoNIK7 vTgw== Received: by 10.224.217.136 with SMTP id hm8mr18470961qab.81.1351529923660; Mon, 29 Oct 2012 09:58:43 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.224.217.136 with SMTP id hm8mr18470954qab.81.1351529923574; Mon, 29 Oct 2012 09:58:43 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.49.109.2 with HTTP; Mon, 29 Oct 2012 09:58:43 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: <95F7C4B8-EC29-4E2D-8025-EAD5E4036632@isc.org> Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2012 12:58:43 -0400 Message-ID: From: Christopher Browne To: "Gould, James" Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQm3e7ESclDwQeU04GrmUViIzDomZcTdLTH5gkHb1diwaVT+ZvvNIZj2kb6FjBKDigytAIcwvYtLQQuftOzhJFAAdf2TczSXKe0iV5xMHoCKvJDyQ/PCl7XtTJVnLF1Vn0VJORO9 X-Mailman-Approved-At: Mon, 29 Oct 2012 12:39:58 -0700 Cc: "Michele@isc.org" , "provreg@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [provreg] Extension for an abuse contact in Domain objects? X-BeenThere: provreg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: EPP discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2012 16:58:50 -0000 On Mon, Oct 29, 2012 at 12:32 PM, Gould, James 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. From lem@isc.org Mon Oct 29 23:08:48 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: provreg@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: provreg@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C755021F84C8 for ; Mon, 29 Oct 2012 23:08:48 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.299 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.299 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 4qQXg4Xi4KRL for ; Mon, 29 Oct 2012 23:08:48 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mx.ams1.isc.org (mx.ams1.isc.org [IPv6:2001:500:60::65]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B3AAE21F84C5 for ; Mon, 29 Oct 2012 23:08:47 -0700 (PDT) Received: from bikeshed.isc.org (bikeshed.isc.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:3:d::19]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-CAMELLIA256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client CN "mail.isc.org", Issuer "RapidSSL CA" (not verified)) by mx.ams1.isc.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B34385F9AFD; Tue, 30 Oct 2012 06:08:38 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from lem@isc.org) Received: from lembook.lem (z65-50-116-115.ips.direcpath.com [65.50.116.115]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by bikeshed.isc.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 35795216C81; Tue, 30 Oct 2012 06:08:35 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from lem@isc.org) Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1283) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 From: =?iso-8859-1?Q?Luis_Mu=F1oz?= In-Reply-To: Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2012 02:08:28 -0400 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: References: <95F7C4B8-EC29-4E2D-8025-EAD5E4036632@isc.org> To: Christopher Browne X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1283) Cc: michelle@blacknight.com, provreg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [provreg] Extension for an abuse contact in Domain objects? X-BeenThere: provreg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: EPP discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2012 06:08:49 -0000 On Oct 29, 2012, at 12:58 PM, Christopher Browne wrote: >> =15=46rom 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. Yes, ideally there would be a policy layer further clarifying this. Is = there merit in building this policy along with the extension? Best regards -lem From Antoin.Verschuren@sidn.nl Tue Oct 30 01:54:40 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: provreg@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: provreg@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9EF1C21F84E2 for ; Tue, 30 Oct 2012 01:54:40 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -4.504 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.504 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_NL=0.55, HOST_EQ_NL=1.545, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 4EJwNgRbDuVB for ; Tue, 30 Oct 2012 01:54:39 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ede1-kamx.sidn.nl (kamx.sidn.nl [94.198.152.69]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 62D0D21F84DD for ; Tue, 30 Oct 2012 01:54:38 -0700 (PDT) Received: from kahubcasn02.SIDN.local ([192.168.2.74]) by ede1-kamx.sidn.nl with ESMTP id q9U8sXo8018992-q9U8sXoA018992 (version=TLSv1 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=CAFAIL) for ; Tue, 30 Oct 2012 09:54:33 +0100 Received: from KAHUBCAS1.SIDN.local (192.168.2.41) by kahubcasn02.SIDN.local (192.168.2.74) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.2.247.3; Tue, 30 Oct 2012 09:54:33 +0100 Received: from [94.198.152.218] (94.198.152.218) by KAHUBCAS1.SIDN.local (192.168.2.41) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.2.247.3; Tue, 30 Oct 2012 09:54:33 +0100 Message-ID: <508F95C8.1070502@sidn.nl> Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2012 09:54:32 +0100 From: Antoin Verschuren User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:16.0) Gecko/20121011 Thunderbird/16.0.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: References: <95F7C4B8-EC29-4E2D-8025-EAD5E4036632@isc.org> In-Reply-To: X-Enigmail-Version: 1.4.5 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Originating-IP: [94.198.152.218] Subject: Re: [provreg] Extension for an abuse contact in Domain objects? X-BeenThere: provreg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: EPP discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2012 08:54:40 -0000 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Op 30-10-12 07:08, Luis Muņoz schreef: > > On Oct 29, 2012, at 12:58 PM, Christopher Browne wrote: > >>> 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. > > Yes, ideally there would be a policy layer further clarifying > this. Is there merit in building this policy along with the > extension? And even with a policy, experience shows it does not lead to better population. How many of you populate the MNAME field in your zone correctly ? What's the difference ? We've had a policy and pre-delegation checks for many years to populate fields correctly, only to find out that registrars only populated the fields so they could pass our tests, but still emails to MNAME's were not replied to (they were sent to dev/null). Same is true even for registrants. Many registrars register domains on their legal entity in stead of their customers because maintaining correct customer data at the registry is too much hassle or their customers don't want their data out there. Responding to abuse is a cost, so it is discouraged. They play by the rules to pass the policy, but not more than that. - -- Antoin Verschuren Technical Policy Advisor SIDN Meander 501, PO Box 5022, 6802 EA Arnhem, The Netherlands P: +31 26 3525500 M: +31 6 23368970 Mailto: antoin.verschuren@sidn.nl XMPP: antoin.verschuren@jabber.sidn.nl HTTP://www.sidn.nl/ -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux) iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJQj5XCAAoJEDqHrM883AgnSvsIAKll/mPR5Lu+VenkEQadP6QL a/RmHx30aU9HzWzigfQDBMBiJqwlX0YaMG+EQowWd79vmHUD7/46k9MHiaiOQZgB SmvRlhIJxN8MQSmeCdaYkP5al2aKehqBcZO2OhFXfvc3r3kF6Vsi/EILQTmyFxt5 Bx9locMSolvpf59zhZRLXkVQSdUgxk+ByiaPBpmgsiNxEwTEYtPQSeMyRSKCLp2Y JcSWm+CaS9SuxKzOd1j63yeUa3SGBaCQIbe4BpRlGs7a+udJRBnTo68ZXmmiXr3H dcm3+P+BPArqBaw/M4CvIN6ozcvpvrSxDhXvvxuq6ghAysRQOO2rP3V/KvS4HJI= =yTlJ -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----