RE: [registrars] whois lookup

[Rick Wesson <wessorh@ar.com>]

Applied for the pattent? I'll be digging up all my prior art, I think I
even posted the methodology to the IETF lists as an Internet Draft, the
Registrars list and I think its in at least one of the old gTLD bids.

don't pattent processes that there are lots of prior art for.

-rick


On Mon, 3 Jun 2002, Rob Hall wrote:

> Paul,
>
> It is us that is doing it ... we call it "alias email", and we have applied
> for a patent on the process.  We would welcome discussion with any registrar
> who wishes to license this from us.
>
>
> Rob.
> Namescout.com
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-registrars@dnso.org [mailto:owner-registrars@dnso.org]On
> Behalf Of Paul Stahura
> Sent: Monday, June 03, 2002 2:19 PM
> To: Registrars@Dnso. Org
> Subject: RE: [registrars] whois lookup
>
>
> Just like with illegal drugs, there is the supply-side and the demand-side.
> What Ken is talking about below is the demand-side.
> He makes valid point that I happen to agree with.
>
> An additional way of limiting the abuse is on the supply-side.
> We are contemplating implementing an "whois-email-address-changer"
> service whereby the email addresses in eNom's port-43 output
> will be dynamic.  I forget which other registrar is already doing this
> (or soimething similar) (please tell me if you know which one)
> This service will change the outputted email addresses to something like:
> "thisaddrwillexpirein24hours.code1234567890@whoisemailforwarder.com"
> all email sent to this address will be forwarded to the real address.
> These addresses will be valid for a period of time
> (like 24 hours, or a week) at which time it will never be used again.
> This gives registrars enough time to send xfer notices (or whatever
> "good" purposes we use the info for), yet
> would then invalidate any abuser's scrapped whois information
> every 24-hours.
> The real addresses will still be publically available in our web-based
> whois,
> just like it is now.  (email addrs are outputted as a gif images there
> which is harder to grab/parse, since you need OCR to do so).
>
> Comments?
>
> Paul
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ken Stubbs [mailto:kstubbs@digitel.net]
> Sent: Monday, June 03, 2002 5:29 AM
> To: Ross Wm. Rader; Registrars@Dnso. Org
> Subject: Re: [registrars] whois lookup
>
>
>
>
> I would assume that this kind of behavior I described  would affect ALL
> registrar's image and would be sanctioned under any proposed registrar "code
> of conduct" .
>
> improper registrar actions towards outside parties (be they their own
> customers, other registrars customers or registries) can influence outsiders
> views of our "constituents" and that is of paramount concern to me.
>
> I am frankly tired of people using  the improper actions of a few registrars
> to "paint" all registrars.
>
> if we want to have future creditability for our constituency, then we need
> to be willing to "step up to the plate" and deal difficult issues like this
> which affect our respective business image..
>
> any registrar who uses improper & unethical  business practices to
> "advantage" themselves in the marketplace needs to be "strongly sanctioned"
> and the issues I raise most definitely fall within this area.
>
> ken stubbs
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Ross Wm. Rader" <ross@tucows.com>
> To: "Ken Stubbs" <kstubbs@digitel.net>; "Bhavin Turakhia"
> <bhavin.t@directi.com>; "Registrars@Dnso. Org" <registrars@dnso.org>
> Sent: Monday, June 03, 2002 8:00 AM
> Subject: Re: [registrars] whois lookup
>
>
> >
> >
> > > how do you suggest we deal with registrars who intentionally data mine
> the
> > > "thick registries "
> > >
> > >
> > > ken stubbs
> >
> > That's a problem for the registries to deal with. Let us instead concern
> > ourselves with data mining of registrars under the thin model...each of us
> > are directly effected...
> >
> > -rwr
> >
> >
> >
>