Suggest members name be in WhoIs Info

[biggedon]

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....

[Keyword Factory]

Members can protect themselves. We don't need someone who has nothing better to than to start creating a series of rules to 'protect' us. This is getting like IRC chat where moderators have nothing to do but try to find reasons to ban people or tell them what to do.

[biggedon]

Members can protect themselves. We don't need someone who has nothing better to than to start creating a series of rules to 'protect' us. This is getting like IRC chat where moderators have nothing to do but try to find reasons to ban people or tell them what to do.

Mods don't create rules or ban members, nor do we/ I try to tell members what to do. We enforce the rules as they are.

Also, other forums like DS have policies where they don't allow the selling of domains with "hidden whois proxies" and also require disclosure if the seller does not own the domain.

You have the right to make suggestions, just like I do.

[maroulis]

biggedon - how do you suggest we overcome the prv whois info?

[Keyword Factory]

Mods don't create rules or ban members, nor do we/ I try to tell members what to do. We enforce the rules as they are.

Nonsense. The mods often poke into people's business and 'interpret' the rules to purse a personal agenda or pet peeve. The only problem I have with it is that the system will not let you ignore the mods.

[jdk]

I think it is a good idea; however, who is going to sit and do a whois on all the names for sale? Last night there were over a dozen threads that didn't have a domain in the title that were still open with no mod/admin in sight.

[biggedon]

biggedon - how do you suggest we overcome the prv whois info?

Hi maroulis

All my domains have my info, whether the be high or low risk names.

Although I may receive spam from whois, I also receive legitimate offers from it as well.

For those who have private whois, obviously it's done for a reason.

However, at some point when they decide to sell, the potential buyer should be able to validate ownership.

Perhaps that could be done by showing a screenshot of the domain within the owners account. Or removing privacy for the purpose of advertising, as the cost is nominal for that service.

I don't have all the answers, but there have been some names posted that I had interest in purchasing, but I won't bother if I see conflicting whois.

That could mean my loss, but that's the way I do what I do.

[Keyword Factory]

I don't have all the answers, but there have been some names posted that I had interest in purchasing, but I won't bother if I see conflicting whois.

That could mean my loss, but that's the way I do what I do.

This is exactly what I mean. You want to force everyone to do business the way you want it or the way you think it should be. If you want to do business that way, go ahead, but don't force it on anyone. I see no reason to force the seller to show his information to the entire world if they do not want to. If it is suspicious I require the seller to use escrow through a domain attorney. Of course if you set some rule the domain may never go up for sale in the first place and your proposed rule will end up disrupting sales.

[jdk]

What about private registrations?

[Sinfully Wicked]

I think it's a stupid idea to be hones't, i thought that was half the reasons for these idiotic thing's like DNOA and being a Verified member? to protect the buyers? i personaly am not a member of any of them nor do i intend of lining the pockets of the owners of them. Domain names were safley being traded back in 1998/9/00 so i don't see the point.

So if this "rule" was to come in to play, what about jointly owned domains? my girl and i own thousands of jointly owned domains, most of the domains i post are either in her name or our companies.

There is a simple solution to protect you from the fraud side - use Escrow

[jdk]

You made a solid point with the verified member

[Wired]

Biggedon, you made a very valid comment.

I think we have assumed those willing to list, also own the name; however, this has not always been the case. Thanks to some very aware members, some went the extra distance and checked whois and protected many sales here.

I agree and I am glad you brought this to our attention.


.

[Argie]

There is always the chance to disable the "private whois" so the potential buyer can see that the seller is the owner of the domain he/she wants to buy. if i'm the seller, i'll be more than glad to do this if i really want to sell the name.

I think is a good idea but only when the buyer ask for it, if i really want to sell, i'll do it, otherwise, the interested buyer won't buy the name (if he/she decides to buy the name anyway, is his/her problem).

Nice idea biggedon

Sorry for my poor english
Argie

[Dale Hubbard]

WHOIS privacy is an option for many domain owners. There should be no prejudice for that. Abuse should be brought to attention here; not useage. If in doubt, escrow the deal (if it's worth it).

[Honan]

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....

Who?
Please tell us who they are, in the interest of protecting members from fraud

[Ian]

I don't see the need for such a rule for a verified member; I submitted to DNF staff a copy of my passport in order to have that icon against my name. Those who don't have it are the problem.

[JuniperPark]

Members can protect themselves. We don't need someone who has nothing better to than to start creating a series of rules to 'protect' us. This is getting like IRC chat where moderators have nothing to do but try to find reasons to ban people or tell them what to do.

If the WHOIS data has someone else's name, you technically DO NOT OWN the name -- read your registration agreement. Anyone that puts fake information in the WHOIS is just plain dumb, and have nothing to complain about when the domain is taken away from them.

Most if the people who play games with the WHOIS are scammers. People with nothing to hide hide nothing.

Members who try to sell names they do not own (and do not have a broker agreement) should be banned -- that's the #1 scam in our business, and rather easily prevented by a rule like this.

[Rockefeller]

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.

[Focus]

yeah it's not hard to be careful..or use a credit card and God forbid you might have to do a chargeback with paypal if someone does'nt push you the name.

[afloat.com]

what about making a rule that whois info needs to be your own and not hidden for non verified members, and exclusives are exempt

I agree that if you are selling a name there is no reason for hidden whois