North American Network Operators Group

Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical

Re: [Fwd: Important ICANN Notice Regarding Your Domain Name(s)]

  • From: Alexander Harrowell
  • Date: Thu Oct 05 08:26:00 2006
  • Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=beta; d=gmail.com; h=received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; b=Ct67dj8av6DZHwM4MMCDOXv6wXN1geUCeCMbpz/Pl4qZmOWewMcjCKjLIgDvEjuJYIBcDlJrofCKby/8uUkyk9vD8j7D7gEnQy5ixmNwitMdMwuUzhvyfSCmzoL6Hsr27I9VU6rm8uI6aOa6xeaQimzWqWf96AsqpK1dFaVLdBw=

Are you sure it's genuine? Those WWD domains (especially
secureserver.net) account for a large fraction of the spam and
phishing attempts I receive.

On 10/5/06, Joe Abley <[email protected]> wrote:
On 4-Oct-2006, at 19:04, Steve Sobol wrote:

> ICANN *does* have a requirement for accurate information in WHOIS and
> while I don't know how strongly the requirement is enforced, they
> *can*
> pull your domain registration if you don't have accurate information.

While I'm not familiar with the precise enforcement mechanisms or
policy, I do know of one ISP who had the delegation for their (.com)
domain name unexpectedly pulled by the registry in response to a
complaint about inaccurate whois information directed at ICANN.

It was painful for the ISP, especially since it happened during the
time that Verisign's sitefinder was live, which caused e-mail to ISP
customers to be hard bounced from Verisign and people looking for
their web page to be presented with a "this domain is not registered"
page instead of a browser error.

It's well worth avoiding, even without the additional sitefinder
complications :-)


Joe