Re: [ga] whois: issues with uniformity
Thomas and all former GA members,
Thomas Roessler wrote:
> ----- Forwarded message from Thomas Roessler <firstname.lastname@example.org> -----
> From: Thomas Roessler <email@example.com>
> To: firstname.lastname@example.org
> Date: Fri, 20 Dec 2002 12:07:07 +0100
> Subject: [nc-whois] issues with uniformity
> Just in case it's helpful, here's a brief list of my favorite issues
> with WHOIS data format and element uniformity.
> 1. Format framework
> - Technical standardization: XML or e-mail header like formats (*)
> are obvious candidates.
> (*) registrant-name: Thomas Roessler
> registrant-email: email@example.com
> Anyway, what to choose is not our decision or discussion: Stick to
> specifying requirements, do not go into technical details.
> Key requirements: Easily parseable; data fields must be able to
> take non-ASCII content. Possibly desires for alternative values in
> different scripts (think about countries where two kinds of
> scripts are in use; think "western names" in China)?
> Consult, in particular, with ccTLD managers from countries using
> non-Latin scripts in order to understand this.
> - Doesn't this enable inappropriate mass data gathering through the
> query-based interface?
> This boils down to the "keep it crappy as long as privacy isn't
> solved" kind of argument.
Not sure what you mean here. However there really is no need to
"Solve" the privacy issue. In fact Privacy in Whois data isn't or
never should have become and issue. The IPC made it an issue
however and are the driving force behind eroding individuals
that are registrants, privacy.
> 2. Data elements
> - Clearly a policy question. Use framework identified above to
> implement this.
> - Current environment: Thin registrar whois services have the "RAA
> data set", thick gTLD registry whois services have the slightly
> extended data set also identified in WIPO's ccTLD best practices.
> ccTLD whoises: zoo.
WIPO hasn't a clue as to what is is talking about... That has been clear
to most participants for several years now...
> - Some registries may have good reasons to have different kind of
> data elements: .biz has provision for extensions, .name has
> different WHOIS model; future sponsored gTLDs may wish to have
> still other changes [additional data elements useful for their
> communities, for instance].
Indeed this may become the case. However again regardless such
registry policies cannot ignore indefinitely privacy concerns in Whois
data. Doing so will invite legal actions as we have already seen,
and will see more of if absolute privacy of personal and private
information is listed or available in Whois data to anyone except
> ccTLDs certainly have to respect
> national law. (See, for instance, the .de compromise which in
> particular concerns the selection of data elements.)
Good point here...
> - Interaction with the fundamental WHOIS privacy question: "Who gets
> access to *WHAT DATA ELEMENTS*?" vs. "What data elements are
> needed in order to fulfill WHOIS' function?"
Exactly right. The basic function of Whois does not require that
the Whois inquiry of on on any DN provide personal and private
information such as physical home address, Home Phone Number
or private E-Mail address. All that is legitimately needed is
the admin. contact information for any particular DN. This may
include a Admin Phone Number, and a mailing address, not necessarily
a physical one..
> - Not clear that a uniform balance can be found.
Uniformity is a wonderful thing when properly applied. It is not,
however necessary when dealing with human beings or personal
information regarding a human being/Registrant, in this instance..
> Thomas Roessler (mobile) <firstname.lastname@example.org>
> ----- End forwarded message -----
> This message was passed to you via the email@example.com list.
> Send mail to firstname.lastname@example.org to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman for INEGroup - (Over 127k members/stakeholders strong!)
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
Contact Number: 214-244-4827 or 972-244-3801
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208
This message was passed to you via the email@example.com list.
Send mail to firstname.lastname@example.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html