Re: [nc-whois] RE: bulk access, extremely brief summary.
On 2002-11-21 15:33:20 -0500, Marilyn Cade wrote:
> I wonder if we have gotten ahead of our headlights a bit in
> trying to sort this through. I'm still struggling with it ....
I'm not sure we even have to struggle with it. The message I took
from our call on Wednesday is that we believe to have consensus that
there should be no bulk access for marketing purposes. The most
likely objection against this seems to be that it may be hard to
enforce. It would not require the implementation of additional
technical measures. (But may cause some cost due to possibly
necessary re-drafting of some contractual language.)
That would be our consensus policy suggestion, along with the
may/shall change in 126.96.36.199.
In that situation, /any/ use of bulk data for marketing purposes
would be a breach of contract, right? So 188.8.131.52 and 184.108.40.206 could
go away since there would be nothing they'd still regulate. This
would include all the doubts we have on how they would have to be
Plan B would be what I called the "piecemeal changes" during our
conference call. That is:
- Fix 220.127.116.11 to include all kinds of distribution channels (like
the draft distributed by Karen).
- Fix 18.104.22.168. How to do this doesn't seem to be clear right now.
-> Mandate opt-out, and suggest monitoring. Pro: Something is
done. Contra: Would mandate changes to registrars' systems,
possibly only for a transition period. I'd expect strong and
reasoned objections against that suggestion.
-> Mandate opt-out, permit opt-in, suggest monitoring. The same
objections as above would apply, except that registrars at
least would have an option to satisfy demand.
-> Mandate opt-in. See above.
-> Leave it to registrars, and remove the current prohibition of
opt-in. This would put the ball into the registrars' field,
and would most likely draw the fewest objections from
The common objection we'd hear would, once again, be the likely
lack of enforceability.
The objection against anything which doesn't at least enable
registrars to offer opt-in is the one raised by Kristy on this
list. That objection has a lot of merit - in particular given the
numbers from our survey.
The objection against anything which enables opt-in would be that
registrars could use it as an excuse to offer "degraded" data also
for non-marketing purposes. (Steve's point on WG 4.)
I'm wondering if we have any reason to believe that "plan A" is
going to fail (and plan B would be acceptable, easier to get
through, and actually have any effect).
If we indeed have consensus for plan A, we would be done by
documenting the various options proposed in plan B, and the
arguments we have for and against them. We could avoid the time and
effort of going through the process of weighing these options at
this point of time.
Thomas Roessler <firstname.lastname@example.org>