[cabfpub] Proposed motion to modify EV domain verification section
jeremy.rowley at digicert.com
Tue May 7 08:05:32 MST 2013
Not necessarily. We are verifying that the self-reported information on WHOIS provides a reasonable connection with the applicant. After all, 11.6.2 only requires that we obtain “a responses indicating that the applicant…is the entity to which the domain is registered” of that “the domain registrar…forward communication to the registered domain holder”.
However, I think the discussion has strayed somewhat from the original point: if a process provides equal assurances of domain control as the WHOIS, shouldn’t we expand the EV Guidelines to include these methods? If so, the question is only about which methods provide equivalent assurances.
From: public-bounces at cabforum.org [mailto:public-bounces at cabforum.org] On Behalf Of Eddy Nigg (StartCom Ltd.)
Sent: Tuesday, May 07, 2013 2:29 AM
To: public at cabforum.org
Subject: Re: [cabfpub] Proposed motion to modify EV domain verification section
On 05/07/2013 06:59 AM, From Jeremy Rowley:
I don’t think the WHOIS check provides any insight about the domain’s operator. Until ICANN requires verification of each domain applicant, the WHOIS information is less reliable (IMO) than several of the verification methods permitted under the baseline requirements.
I think you are making a logical mistake here - we don't rely on the WHOIS records in order to confirm the existence of an entity, we match those details with the by us verified organization details in order to confirm that the entity that was validated appears in the WHOIS records.
Eddy Nigg, COO/CTO
StartCom Ltd. <http://www.startcom.org>
startcom at startcom.org
Join the Revolution! <http://blog.startcom.org>
Follow Me <http://twitter.com/eddy_nigg>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Public