Slashdot Mirror


ICANN Cracks Down on Invalid WHOIS Data

DotNM writes "Internet News reports that ICANN, the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers, is beginning a crackdown on invalid data in the WHOIS database. In ICANN's annual report, they found that nearly 5000 of the 24148 complaints were due to inaccurate WHOIS information. Some of the domain names in question had the address information of known spammers in the database. Registrars, the companies you register your domains with, are under contractual obligations to ensure this information is correct and accurate. Do you believe this is a step in the right direction? Why?"

2 of 358 comments (clear)

  1. Proxy Registration Services by Jonathan+Quince · · Score: 5, Informative

    For those who fear stalkers, etc., there are services like Domains by Proxy (related to the registrar Go Daddy). These services will register the domain on your behalf; they require valid contact info from you, and they put their own contact info in the WHOIS database. This is technically in line with the ICANN rules because the proxy registrant is the real registrant of the domain. (Although they have a contractual obligation of doing it on your behalf.)

    If you break the terms of service -- for example, if you use the domain for spam support or to commit illegal activities -- the proxy registrant will expose your real identity. Otherwise, your privacy is pretty well protected with these services.

    I've used those types of services (including Domains by Proxy) to register domains on behalf of minor children who shouldn't have their contact info exposed online, and for other purposes requiring some level of privacy. For my own domains, I'm not afraid to use my valid PO box address and phone number.

    (Note: I am not affiliated with these services in any way, except as a customer.)

    --
    Microsoft Windows is, fittingly, the official Desktop OS of Olig
  2. Re:It's a rule, play by it. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    postmaster@ is required (RFC822 6.3, C.6), webmaster@ is just a convention, for now.

    RFC 2142, "Mailbox Names for Common Services, Roles and Functions" is a proposed standard and includes 'webmaster@', 'abuse@', 'noc@', etc.