DNSO Mailling lists archives


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

RE: [nc-whois] RE: [ga] Bulk Whois Data Issue

 It would be interesting to know what methodology a registrar or registry
could conceivably use to make the distinctions Marilyn sets out in her first

-----Original Message-----
From: Cade,Marilyn S - LGA
Sent: 4/17/2002 8:41 PM
Subject: [nc-whois] RE: [ga] Bulk Whois Data Issue

It would be helpful to have some statistics from the registrars about
the % of registrants who are companies, organizations/institutions,
etc., versus individuals who are acting as real individuals. Many who
are registered as individuals may be warehousers, which is not illegal,
but might not be an individual "acting" as an individual.  

If such data does not exist from the registrars [registries?], how can
we develop such data? It would be extremely helpful to the work of the

We have discussed this briefly in the TF, and suggested that Tony and I,
as co-chairs can draft a letter of request to the two relevant
constituencies. As a "short-cut", can we ask, again, for the members of
the registry and registrar constituencies to respond with suggestions
about how to gather this statistical, or even "best guess" analysis? 

Responses to the list seem most appropriate, given our work schedule.

-----Original Message-----
From: DannyYounger@cs.com [mailto:DannyYounger@cs.com]
Sent: Wednesday, April 17, 2002 6:04 PM
To: ga@dnso.org
Subject: [ga] Bulk Whois Data Issue

Please note the following comment posted by Tim Ruiz to the registrars

<< I understand the reasoning behind public disclosure of registrant
data but 
it seems to have gone too far. In this day and age of privacy concerns
it's a 
little insane that Registrars are required to make their customer data 
available to the public in bulk.  One-offs through a Web interface are
thing. Requirements for bulk access, including open ports, to the data
just too much. It's an open invitation to abuse with no one really
willing to 
enforce proper use of the data. In fairness, I'm not sure there is any
way to 
enforce it given the international nature of what we do. I believe there

should NOT be any requirement for open port, or bulk, access to this

I share Tim's point of view, and would appeciate hearing the position of
members on this topic (especially the views of those members that now 
participate on the WHOIS Committee).

This message was passed to you via the ga@dnso.org list.
Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

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