DNSO Mailling lists archives


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

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: roessler@does-not-exist.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)        <roessler-mobile@does-not-exist.net>

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