Re: [nc-whois] issues with uniformity [and accessibility and accuracy]
This was very helpful. However, I am very uncomfortable with enforcing
uniformity and accuracy without having completely addressed accessibility
issues. Can we come up with a plan, or a strategy, and a time line to
resolve accessibility issues?
At 12:07 PM 12/20/2002 +0100, Thomas Roessler wrote:
>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: firstname.lastname@example.org
> 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.
>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.
>- 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]. ccTLDs certainly have to respect
> national law. (See, for instance, the .de compromise which in
> particular concerns the selection of data elements.)
>- 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?"
>- Not clear that a uniform balance can be found.
>Thomas Roessler (mobile) <email@example.com>