RE: [registrars] Proposed Ballots

[Paul Stahura <stahura@enom.com>]

Ross, 

You didn't hear what I said.

I propose:
1) close down all (*all*) (did I say all?... yes I did) 
port-43 access, except to do transfers among registrars.
Once registries switch to EPP, we wont even need that, 
so we can completely switch off our port-43 whois then.
2) You want whois and you are an IP atty, a beat cop, or a guy with a 
good idea?  Go to a web site to get the info.
3) If any registrar wants to distrubute some or all of their bulk whois, 
they are free to do so, but not required to do so.

If you are a registrant who is concerned about your privacy,
use a whois proxy service.  
There is no subectivity in this model: anyone can get the
information from your website.  It is not restricted in that way,
only that the information can be made difficult to be machine readable,
such as by the use of gifs, or by simple "am-i-human?" methods
like many of us already use.

Registries who require us to give them whois information should
be required not to allow machine-readable access to it, and
should be resticted as to who they can give it out to in bulk form, if at
all.

If you are concerned about who has access to the whois
information on these websites, then we can later make it protected.
I do see that at that time we would have to define who
has access and who doesn't.  If we do make it protected, at
least the registrant can then be informed who looked at their info.

Paul

-----Original Message-----
From: Ross Wm. Rader [mailto:ross@tucows.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, April 02, 2003 7:29 PM
To: 'Paul Stahura'; registrars@dnso.org
Subject: RE: [registrars] Proposed Ballots


> I am all for making an even stiffer restiction on 
> port-43, like not having one at all except to do transfers 
>  IP and law enforcement can get the information via our 
> websites which is more easily protected from mining by for 
> example using gifs that many of us already use there. It is 
> difficult to do this via port 43

Paul - small problem - there is no clear definition of "IP" or law
enforcement. Should any member of a bar that identifies themselves as an
intellectual property attorney be allowed access to the special whois
that you describe? What about trademark holders? Only registered
trademark holders or are common law rights good enough? Copyright
holders? Patent holders? Patent applicants? People with good ideas?
What about law enforcement? Judges? Beat cops? UN patrolman?

The problem lies not with the restrictions, but with the application of
those restrictions. Subjectivity of this nature just ends up costing us
money - money that none of us should be willing to spend this easily. 

-rwr