RE: [nc-whois] Gems: Draft for chapter IV.
Thomas, I agree that the testimony on WHOIS accuracy is one of the additional
inputs the TF should be considering. That would come into the RECOMMENDATIONS FOR
FURTHER ACTION, right?
So, Remember folks: report from survey. Separate: Recommendations for Next Steps and Further
action. Survey is one element of input; your own outreach and expertise another; the
WHOIS testimony; and other comments received so far another...
And, yes, the TF needs to have a call to discuss that, but the document on the survey
Some of us are undertaking some additional analysis on pulling gems from Q20 over the
week end. IF you haven't completed your other assignments, please take note that delays
create bottlenecks for your colleagues.
I've spoken to Louie Touton regarding the scheduling of the session on WHOIS and he will
come back to Tony and me with more details. Due to the need to allow sufficient time to
discuss Evolution and Reform, we will need to be flexible about when we have the WHOIS
discussion/public forum comments, etc. No detail yet, but it might be at a different
time frame. I've alerted him that we very much want our TF members who are not there
to be able to dial in to participate and help to present.
From: Thomas Roessler [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org]
Sent: Saturday, June 08, 2002 9:11 AM
To: Kristy McKee; Cade,Marilyn S - LGA; Ram Mohan; email@example.com
Subject: Re: [nc-whois] Gems: Draft for chapter IV.
On 2002-06-08 14:05:04 +0200, Thomas Roessler wrote:
>Here's the draft gem collection for chapter IV (marketing & bulk
>access). It would be nice to have something along these lines in
>every chapter, I suppose.
In the end of that document, there was a note in which I asked for a
specific free-form response which I couldn't locate.
I've found the text I had in mind - it wasn't from the survey, but
from Cameron Powell's Congress testimonial at
>> Some use the RAAs allowance of an up to $10,000 charge for
their Whois to insist on $10,000 even when they hold
relatively few domain names thus effectively preventing the very
public access ICANN (and the public) desire: who can afford to
pay $1,000,000 for all 100 registrars data? <<
Later in that document, Powell also describes Snapnames' take on
whois data access, and an attempt to get the various kinds of
>> Mandate third-party (non-competitive) access to Whois data to
be used for the sole, legitimate purposes of escrow, hygiene,
and searchability, and eliminate the mandate for registrars to
give their Whois to their competitors. Because a primary reason
the Whois data is hard to access is that registrars are trying
to defend it from competitors, registrars simply shouldnt be
required to give each other their priceless customer data, as
they are today. We can think of no compelling justification for
the requirement, and its consequences block critical
innovations. (Nor do customers or registrars want the Whois
used as a resource for spamming or telemarketing.)
Instead, registrars should be made to provide their Bulk Whois
data to neutral third parties non-competitors who will agree to
use the data solely for the purpose of escrowing, cleansing, or
building searchable fee-based databases out of it. Because each
registrar charging $10,000 wouldnt get the project off the
ground, registrars should be required to provide their Whois
data to one or more third parties, for unified Whois use, on
reasonable terms. These third parties would allow others to
search the resulting unified database only under certain
conditions (possibly with lesser or greater levels of access
depending on a users prior authorization) but at least at
per-record prices that would make mining the database for
marketing purposes prohibitively expensive. Users could be
tracked and abuses recorded and penalized. While a public Whois
look up on registrars websites should remain free, though
difficult to abuse via high-speed harvesting, no third party
provider can do the necessary aggregation, parsing, and
normalization of over 100 Whois formats, and then build a
powerful Boolean search tool for the data, without being able to
charge for its efforts. Competition will define the appropriate
Sounds like an idea we should at least record for further discussion.
Thomas Roessler <firstname.lastname@example.org>