<<<
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.
Tim
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
discussions
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.
Regards,
Bruce
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|