Re: [registrars] Fw: [nc-whois] useful information/link

["Ross Wm. Rader" <ross@tucows.com>]

I'm more interested in Tim's original question...

"how [Verisign] got the data in the first place."

-rwr

----- Original Message -----
From: "Tim Ruiz" <tim@godaddy.com>
To: <bbeckwith@verisign.com>
Cc: <Registrars@dnso.org>
Sent: Wednesday, April 17, 2002 10:57 AM
Subject: RE: [registrars] Fw: [nc-whois] useful information/link


> Bruce,
>
> That looks like a poor attempt at putting words in my mouth and misquoting
> me, or perhaps reading comprehension is just not your forte.
>
> As I said at the outset of my note below, it is my personal opinion. And
> what I am suggesting is a change, not a breach of contract.
>
> What I said in my email of the 28th is:
>
> "They did not have our bulk whois and even though many of us get concerned
> about their close relationship with VeriSign-GRS, the registry does not
> have this information. We have never, and will never, sell or rent our
list
> otherwise."
>
> Note the word "otherwise."
>
> Tim
>
>
>  -------- Original Message --------
>    Subject: RE: [registrars] Fw: [nc-whois] useful information/link
>    From: "Beckwith, Bruce" <bbeckwith@verisign.com>
>    Date: Wed, April 17, 2002 7:17 am
>    To: Registrars@dnso.org
>
>    Tim,
>
>    Are you advocating that registrars breach their contracts with ICANN
>    by not providing whois data via port 43 or via a bulk whois agreement?
>
>    Between your note below, and the note that you sent to the list on
>    March 28, where you stated:
>
>    "We have never, and will never, sell or rent our list..."
>
>    it is not clear what GoDaddy's official position is on access to whois
>    data.
>
>    Regards,
>
>    Bruce
>
>     -----Original Message-----
>    From: Tim Ruiz [mailto:tim@godaddy.com]
>    Sent: Wednesday, April 17, 2002 7:06 AM
>    To: kstubbs@digitel.net
>    Cc: Registrars@dnso.org
>    Subject: Re: [registrars] Fw: [nc-whois] useful information/link
>
>    My personal opinion is that I welcome some enforeable regulation.
>
>    I understand the reasoning behind public disclosure of registrant data
>    but it seems to have gone to far. In this day and age of privacy
>    concerns it's a little insane that Reigstrars are required to make
>    their customer data available to the public in bulk.
>
>    One-offs through a Web interface are one thing. Requirements for bulk
>    access, including open ports, to the data are 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
>    data.
>
>    Web interfaces into this data should also be written to prevent
>    scripting as much as possible. This is especially important with
>    Registrars or other Whois services that attempt to do cross-registrar
>    searches. If they are not careful to prevent scripting they may
>    unintentionally become party to indirect abuse of our data. Another
>    reason to remove open port access.
>
>    Tim
>
>
>