Revamped Whois Inaccuracy Reporting System Goes Live

[rusticdog]

Hooray....

A redesigned system for receiving reports of inaccurate domain name registration data has gone live today.

The Whois Data Problem Report System (WDPRS) has a number of advantages over the previous system, which was first introduced in 2002. Among them are:

* More detailed information is captured from complainants to assist registrars in investigating Whois inaccuracies
* Duplicate reports regarding the same domain name are not accepted by the system
* Reports concerning domains already on hold are removed
* Greater capacity has been introduced to allow for bulk submissions of reports
* Processes have been put in place to assess registrar compliance with RAA Whois inaccuracy investigation requirements

The revamped WDRPS can be found at http://wdprs.internic.net/.

Background:

[AlphaCentauri]

Not hooray, the refusal to accept duplicate reports just institutionalizes one of the biggest faults of the system: A spammer can create a registration with only one accurate item -- like an email address using a free email account -- then report himself. That prevents any legitimate reports from being considered while the slow wheels of ICANN grind along to establish that the reported item is in fact accurate. ICANN doesn't bother checking the rest of the listing, and they don't accept any other reports until they close the first one.

I'll have to give the bulk reporting feature a try, but this announcement looks like it's more about making life easier for ICANN, not for people reporting spammed domains.

[AlphaCentauri]

Ok, I just submitted one. There is NO provision for bulk reporting at that link. The only difference is that at least the confirmation email showed up this time, unlike the times I tried in the past.

[stan_qaz]

How does this work for folks that sign up for their web provider's privacy option that uses contact info for the provider, not the customer?

http://www.webhero.com/support/website_ ... n_privacy/

[AlphaCentauri]

How does this work for folks that sign up for their web provider's privacy option that uses contact info for the provider, not the customer?

http://www.webhero.com/support/website_ ... n_privacy/

There are some of these that are just a service the registrars provide to protect customers' information from spammers. Those will de-anonymize the information if there is evidence the domain is being used for spam or other abuse.

Others are in league with the spammers and are nearly impossible to contact (they may require a subpoena, or only accept registered mail inquiries to a snail mail address). Those are being protested by groups like Knujon as a violation of ICANN rules. ICANN has the authority to stop the practice, at least among accredited registrars, but hasn't acted yet.

The privacy services may have no connection to the registars at all, so the registrar may not know the identity of the registrant, either. In that case, the registrant doesn't actually have any legal recourse if the domain name is stolen, as the name in the whois is the owner of the domain, regardless of other arrangements.

[rusticdog]

There's a service in NZ I've seen used by scammers too www.privatebox.co.nz

It gives customers what appears to be a physical address when it's actually just a PO Box, when used in a WhoIs record, it's incredibly misleading. I've had a few emails with an ICANN Registrar Liaison Manager though he hasn't replied about this one.

[AlphaCentauri]

There's a service in NZ I've seen used by scammers too http://www.privatebox.co.nz

It gives customers what appears to be a physical address when it's actually just a PO Box, when used in a WhoIs record, it's incredibly misleading. I've had a few emails with an ICANN Registrar Liaison Manager though he hasn't replied about this one.

Yeah, we were just looking at that one. A domain registered with that address not only called a post office box an "apartment" in the whois, but the mailbox address is not the same location as where you go to pick up the mail. If you look on Google street view, there don't appear to be any buildings on that side of the street at all. The guy using that address nearly got his domain reported for claiming to live on the 17th floor of a non-existent building, when it's actually one of those post office boxes (the domain is still shady, but not that shady).