DNSO Mailling lists archives


<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

RE: [nc-impwhois] Starting point for WHOIS implementation discussions

Title: RE: [nc-impwhois] Starting point for WHOIS implementation discussions
Bulk Access
I agree with Elana that abuse of port 43 is a serious problem and should be addressed. However, I am concerned that the wording below may dissuade implementation of the bulk whois recommendation. I don't believe that further restricting the use of bulk whois will affect port 43 abuse one way or the other. All but one instance of the port 43 abuse that we have identified has come from parties who have never requested our bulk whois.
The recommendation as stated is reasonable and can be implemented with very little impact on registrars.
Whois Accuracy
11. The implementation issue here is definition of "validate." I would recommend that it be simply a check box, button, or method for the registrant to confirm that yes, the data is current and correct, e.g. in a fashion similar to what a registrar requires for confirmation of acceptance of the Registration Agreement.
12. I think this is fine as stated. The Deletes TF will deal the details of the verification procedure or documentation. This deals simply with the fact that proof of verification must be submitted to redeem a domain from the RGP "if" it has been deleted due to false data.
13. Here I believe that the documentary proof must be of the same nature as that required to redeem a name from the RGP when deleted for false data. I don't think we need more than one description or policy detailing what is acceptable verification. Again, the Deletes TF is dealing with this.
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-nc-impwhois@dnso.org [mailto:owner-nc-impwhois@dnso.org]On Behalf Of Elana Broitman
Sent: Friday, January 10, 2003 2:18 PM
To: 'Bruce Tonkin'; nc-impwhois@dnso.org
Cc: SMiholovich@networksolutions.com
Subject: RE: [nc-impwhois] Starting point for WHOIS implementation discussions

I was asked to provide language noting the concern with eliminating Bulk Whois for marketing purposes WITHOUT dealing with abuse of public and Port 43 Whois:

While there are many concerns with marketing uses of Bulk Whois, it must be noted that there is an equal - if not worse - problem created by spammers and unscrupulous marketers downloading contact data from the publicly available and Port 43 Whois and using it for unauthorized communications.  This is a worse situation than marketing off Bulk Whois because it is done clandestinely.  Registrars are not aware that customers' data has been "stolen" until hearing from the customers that they have been harmfully impacted.  Abuse of public and Port 43 Whois is much more difficult to protect, it is almost impossible to warn customers, or to stop the abusers. There is a growing number of legal cases stemming from this abuse.

Additionally, the abuse of Port 43 causes technical problems.  The Whois access can be unavailable for legitimate reasons.

The implementation committee, therefore, recommends that this issue be promptly reviewed by the task force, and if possible, in parallel with ICANN's review of bulk whois license agreement changes.  The reason for this is that the deletion of bulk requirements in the contract may inadvertently push marketers, etc., to use other methods, such as public and Port 43 Whois.  Therefore, we may inadvertently escalate the problem we are trying to solve if we do not use a comprehensive approach.

-----Original Message-----
From: Bruce Tonkin [mailto:Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au]
Sent: Wednesday, January 08, 2003 2:16 AM
To: nc-impwhois@dnso.org
Cc: SMiholovich@networksolutions.com
Subject: [nc-impwhois] Starting point for WHOIS implementation

Hello All,

Following a discussion with the WHOIS task force today, I attach a summary of the recommendations of the WHOIS task force (extracted from the task force report) for:

- bulk access
- accuracy

We should focus our meeting on discussing the implementation details of these specific recommendations.


<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>