Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote: >> I believe Frank's concern is that he wants the ability to >> refuse services to sites who have not published accurate >> contact information through whois. > Very bad idea, IMHO. But it's true that, if you refuse email > from ".com" domains, you have much less spam :-) You confused this with .biz ;-) No, personally I don't need this ability, maybe I would consider it as (least important) factor in a scoring system. No, I want a working address if abuse@ / abuse.net failed, and a hint which steps I can skip for known "rfc-ignorants". The whois data is the last resort. For ICANN's gTLDs the WDPRS offers an adsitional step. > The vast majority of the ccTLD in the world have no whois > server Not exactly. 107 have a working whois server as far as I can judge it (excl. two with no contact data). Add some special cases (e.g. for UK and ZA it depends on the SLD). > (check the "whois server" field in the IANA whois) That's often obsolete / incomplete, see also: http://lists.megacity.org/pipermail/rfci-discuss/2005-July/003568.html BTW, privacy laws in the EU and elsewhere are one thing, but there are also laws protecting customers, at least "commercial" Web sites must offer contact data. For a very broad definition of "commercial", e.g. I don't have a domain (=> no whois data) but "must" publish contact data on an essentially private site. No 2119 MUST, it's a legal "must", two lawyers have three opinions, three lawyers have six opinions, etc. ;-) But DE is definitely a part of the EU. Bye, Frank _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf