[anti-abuse-wg] Spam under protection. Believe it or not!

I confess that I have been seriously remiss in failing to respond
to the response to my postings about ICANN which was posted by
David Conrad <drc at virtualized.org> back on Tuseday of last week.

I may (and in fact do) disagree with his various characterizations of
ICANN... although the word "excuses" might be more apropos in this
context.  But rather than descending into a lengthy debate about
who ICANN is really working for / controlled by, or what it has
done... or failed to do... to help insure a less crime-prone
Internet, I would like now to just reiterate two important questions
which I posted here last week and which I have still not received
any answer to from any party.  Surely, if (as he has asserted)
David Conrad <drc at virtualized.org> is the CTO of ICANN, then I think
that at the very least, even if nobody else on this list knows the
answers to these questions, he at least should be able to answer them.

Again, my questions are simple ones:

1)  Within a domain WHOIS records, what data fields relating to
the registrant are considered manditory and which are considered
optional?

2)  ICANN has gone to some trouble... not nearly enough, as I have
already described... in setting up a "WHOIS data problem reporting"
system.  But I am forced to ask the obvious question about that
yet again... because I still don't have any answer from anyone...

If a problem is reported (to ICANN) relating to allegedly bogus
(or fradulent) data within a domain WHOIS record, and if, after
some period of time has elapsed, the domain registrant has refused
to make any change to the bogus WHOIS data (and/or if he just changes
it to some DIFFERENT bogus/fraudlent data) then what is SUPPOSED to
happen?

I would have thought that any CTO of ICANN who is defending his
organization's commitment to being part of the solution, rather
than part of the problem, would have been anxious and indeed eager
to answer this question.  But apparently, the answer to this simple
question about actual enforcement of the integrity of WHOIS data...
which ICANN claims is really and truly carse about... is nowhere to
be found.  (Why is the answer to this simple question so hard to
come by?)


Regards,
rfg