Suggest members name be in WhoIs Info

[Biggie]

I see some members here selling names and the whois does not reflect their information.

I feel that in the interest of protecting members from fraud,that this info should be required.

All others should be posted only in Brokerage section.

Thoughts....

 

[Commerce]

Very interesting thread.

I think several people have already pointed out the problem of private whois registration for such a plan. That by itself will probably put the breaks on implementing it as originally presented.

Nevertheless, there seems a real need to address the concern biggedon brought up in starting this thread.

My own thoughts on the thread to date:

Bad information in whois (not the case you brought up Rockefeller, but rather just bogus stuff in the record) - Immediate red flag, don't do business.

Private whois information - Send a message to the email address associated with the domain. If the seller is legit, it is likely (but not absolutely certain - think dropped free email accounts that are picked up by a scammer) that the seller is the owner and thus will receive the message. - Proceed with caution.

Whois matches - Well, we still have a possible problem here. Suppose a new member signs up with a name in the whois and has not authenticated via something like the DNF Verified Member program (which is a great step, but could also still be falsfied with a "creative" scammer). - Proceed with caution.

Really, when all is said and done, trust is probably the most critical factor in all domain transactions. Without some trust level as a basis for doing business, no transactions are possible. Arguably, not even an escrow is trustable if a scammer has stolen a domain through exploiting a weakness at a lax registrar whose domain owner is not paying attention.

Right or wrong, I think that the very nature of the system demands trust or it becomes, at a minimum, difficult to do business (certainly in the low dollar domain name transaction environment, because the costs exceed the returns).

Even so, considering and throwing out better ways to create a trustworthy venue for online trade is most worthy.

Again, great thread biggedon.

-Commerce

 

[Focus]

why don't we all just stop selling and buying domains so nobody has to worry about anything anymore and we will walk around with foil hats on too so that the aliens can't read our minds.

 

[Argie]

Buyer beware, do your homework.

Exactly

 

[Biggie]

Thanks for those who responded to the suggestion, whether your comments were pro or con, they are appreciated!

In response, the thread was started in general, not specific to an individual.

However, those that want to put themselves on "front street" to claim that they have sold x number of names and to whom they sold them to is irrelevant to the issue.

Anyone can "claim" they are selling names for a "partner"!

Additionally, anytime you post a domain here for sale, it becomes our business, to insure that your post complies with the guidelines of the forum.

Especially, when your thread is reported by another member and the question of "ownership" is raised!

How are we to ascertain, that you or any other member who says "these are me and my partners names" is being forthright,when the "whois" differs from other domains that you are sellling?

If we say, "oh he's cool, it's okay for him to do it", then here comes another member doing the same thing, then were do we draw the line?

Again, I'm not saying you shouldn't be able to sell your names as is, however I do feel that those not reflecting your "whois" should be posted in the "brokerage" section.

Perhaps Administration will consider these concerns.

 

[Deleted member 5660]

Anyone can "claim" they are selling names for a "partner"!

Additionally, anytime you post a domain here for sale, it becomes our business, to insure that your post complies with the guidelines of the forum.

OK, you have domains for sale on the forum right now. I looked up the whois and it didn't say anything about "biggedon." It has a name an address in there but how do I know that is you? You have this verification seal so I clicked that and it just says dnforum "verified" you info but it didn't say what your identity is or anything else for that matter. then I look at your profile on here and it says you own a public company but I was unable to find your ticker symbol on any stock exchange. Further, I searched on your phone number and I found a whois listing for yahoo-cards.net that shows it is owned by Yahoo! but the other contacts are the same as the domains you have for sale on here. http://www.ratite.com/whois/whois.cgi?domain=YAHOO-CARDS.NET

So i guess I have verified that biggedon is really the owner of Yahoo!

 

[Duckinla]

Especially, when your thread is reported by another member and the question of "ownership" is raised!

How are we to ascertain, that you or any other member who says "these are me and my partners names" is being forthright,when the "whois" differs from other domains that you are sellling?

Mods don't have that responsibility and shouldn't want it. That responsibility would come with Liability. Legit concerns about a sale should be posted in the sales thread and the buyer should clear up the concern openly. If the concern isn't valid, mods should wipe it from the thread at the request of the seller.

According to my whois info my last name is "Inc." and I live at the Mail Boxes Etc. down the block.

 

[mindzero]

I say it would be unfair to make it a rule for no private whois settings when selling a domain here because you are basically forcing them to put out personal information.

 

[Biggie]

OK, you have domains for sale on the forum right now. I looked up the whois and it didn't say anything about "biggedon." It has a name an address in there but how do I know that is you? You have this verification seal so I clicked that and it just says dnforum "verified" you info but it didn't say what your identity is or anything else for that matter. then I look at your profile on here and it says you own a public company but I was unable to find your ticker symbol on any stock exchange. Further, I searched on your phone number and I found a whois listing for yahoo-cards.net that shows it is owned by Yahoo! but the other contacts are the same as the domains you have for sale on here. http://www.ratite.com/whois/whois.cgi?domain=YAHOO-CARDS.NET

So i guess I have verified that biggedon is really the owner of Yahoo!

It's a poor attempt on your part to try to make this about me, unless you have personal issues with me!

I would further state that, your posting of a link to my whois information was totally uncalled for, as I have not posted any members info, in an effort to support my position on this issue!
My domains for sale are not in question, nor has any member reported my thread concerning "ownership" issues. To go digging thru my profile to find a "discrepancy", further illustrates your need to find evidence to support your fallacious arguments.

Still, you have provided me with "unknown" information concerning the "unauthorized" usage of my whois in association with a domain (yahoo-cards.net), which I do not own, nor have I ever owned.

I have, in the past received "verification" emails for "yahoo" related names which I did not own as well. Icann was notified that I did not, and had not own them, during anytime of their registration history.
I can only assume that someone had registered them using my whois, as the "verification" list contained at least "20" or more domains.

 

[Honan]

Biggedon is talking about me.

Yes I've tried to explain before, I own several domain names with a partner of mine and frankly all the information has been in his name for years now. I dont feel that I should have to change that information to mine..I've sold several of the domain names on this forum..to Adam in fact and have never had a problem. I feel that since I do have at least 100 TR and I am DNF verified I shouldnt be bothered with this nonsense.

Can we have a new rule ?
The rule could be if you have a TR of over 100 and are DNF verified then you can sell names that have someone elses whois info

I say it would be unfair to make it a rule for no private whois settings when selling a domain here because you are basically forcing them to put out personal information.

There is no objection to private whois
That is a legitimate service that one can choose to pay for.
The objection is selling names that have someone elses whois info or fake whois info

 

[mindzero]

There is no objection to private whois
That is a legitimate service that one can choose to pay for.
The objection is selling names that have someone elses whois info or fake whois info

In that case, yes, I do agree they should have their own information if they are trying to sell a domain unless they are a domain broker.

 

[Duckinla]

It's a fine line. DNF doesn't want to get into the business of policing domain sales. But also want to take action if something seems amiss. The best way to handle that is to let the community police itself.

 

[Rockefeller]

Can we have a new rule ?
The rule could be if you have a TR of over 100 and are DNF verified then you can sell names that have someone elses whois info


There is no objection to private whois
That is a legitimate service that one can choose to pay for.
The objection is selling names that have someone elses whois info or fake whois info

Not all registrars offer privacy. Its a complete double standard. It has to be in your name or it has to be private? That makes no sense. If thats the case then DNF would have to say no one can make their information private. I believe GiantDomains has made up his mind..and he is an admin, just in case you forgot.

 

[Deleted member 5660]

OK, first of all nobody has explained how you would actually verify the information in the whois. All you have is a DNF username and, in some cases, a gold seal. I bet most of the sales on here cannot be verified unless you start somethink like a certificate authority.

As for the whois privacy service ... why would anyone pay for that and who says only registrars can offer the service? Anyone can set up a PO Box, mail forwarding service, untraceable telephone number, etc. and simply call it Joe's proxy service. It won't cost anything other than the fees for the PO Box and phone. Then you don't have to worry about what the registrar will do or any fees they charge to process inquiries.

In fact if you were worried about UDRP's just set up your own proxy service. If a complaint is filed you get to look at the complaint and bring in the "real" owner of the domain later. WIPO says this is OK:
http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/decisions/html/2006/d2006-0975.html

 

[VirtualT]

OK, first of all nobody has explained how you would actually verify the information in the whois. All you have is a DNF username and, in some cases, a gold seal. I bet most of the sales on here cannot be verified unless you start somethink like a certificate authority.

It doesn't need to be verified, it just needs to be able to be verified. You would assume that if someone doesn't have anything to hide, you could either email, snail mail, or phone them from the whois if you needed to verify ownership.
If the whois info is not your own, it should be assumed you are either brokering the name, or there is a third party involved, and there is a valid argument that this should be declared at the time of sale.

 

[Commerce]

Consumers said earlier in this thread: "OK, first of all nobody has explained how you would actually verify the information in the whois. All you have is a DNF username and, in some cases, a gold seal. I bet most of the sales on here cannot be verified unless you start somethink like a certificate authority."

Actually, I think I touched on verification in my first post.

It is easy enough to change the NIC record and whois information. Even if the whois is bogus, one could demand a valid email be placed in the record prior to purchase. If one sends to the email of record and it is received by the other party with appropriate confirmation steps within the sent message, you could conceivably verify a strong likelihood of ownership (or at least control).

Even in the rockefeller example, his partner would logically receive these emails and forward them on to rockefeller.

As with most things on the Internet, not a 100% verification, but a strong indicator, and certainly stronger than nothing.

 

[Deleted member 5660]

Consumers said earlier in this thread: "OK, first of all nobody has explained how you would actually verify the information in the whois. All you have is a DNF username and, in some cases, a gold seal. I bet most of the sales on here cannot be verified unless you start somethink like a certificate authority."

Actually, I think I touched on verification in my first post.

It is easy enough to change the NIC record and whois information. Even if the whois is bogus, one could demand a valid email be placed in the record prior to purchase. If one sends to the email of record and it is received by the other party with appropriate confirmation steps within the sent message, you could conceivably verify a strong likelihood of ownership (or at least control).

Even in the rockefeller example, his partner would logically receive these emails and forward them on to rockefeller.

As with most things on the Internet, not a 100% verification, but a strong indicator, and certainly stronger than nothing.

I understand all that but who is going to do all this for domains sold here? Who is going to send these e-mails. Will the mods verify things every time someone claims there is an inavalid whois sale going on?

The only reason I am posting on this thread is because the threadstarter has disrupted by business dealings in the past with his pet peeves ... transactions that had nothing to do with him and he needs to mind his own business.

 

[Commerce]

Consumers said: "I understand all that but who is going to do all this for domains sold here? Who is going to send these e-mails. Will the mods verify things every time someone claims there is an inavalid whois sale going on?"

Truthfully, I don't think it is the job of the mods or DNForum to verify the voracity of a transaction (after all, why would they want to take on the liability). I think it nice that the site even offers a "Verified Member" program, but I also think that with any and all transactions each of us undertakes, the onus is always on the buyer to do his or her homework as others have already stated in different ways in this thread.

Even so, I do think that it is a worthy thing to think about making transactions safer for the community. Perhaps part of the answer is to create some "best practices for buyers and sellers" to include some of these ideas to create a safer transaction environment - who knows, perhaps some poor soul here at DNForum will read said "best practices" and save themself some frustration.

consumers also said: "The only reason I am posting on this thread is because the threadstarter has disrupted by business dealings in the past with his pet peeves ... transactions that had nothing to do with him and he needs to mind his own business."

This is something I have no specific knowledge about and am not about to get into the middle of.

My main reason for joining this thread and adding comments about the idea of making transactions safer for members (What I presumed was the reason for the thread being started) is simply because I thought it a good topic for all of us to consider and discuss.

 

[Biggie]

The only reason I am posting on this thread is because the threadstarter has disrupted by business dealings in the past with his pet peeves ... transactions that had nothing to do with him and he needs to mind his own business.

revenge.... is that what it's all about?

 

[leo]

I would difficult to implement for all domains sold and bought here...maybe a price cap?? all domains selling above $2000 or something like that?

 

[Deleted member 5660]

revenge.... is that what it's all about?

It is about stopping people like you from disrupting my business transactions