DNSO Mailling lists archives


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

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


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

Note the word "otherwise."


 -------- 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


   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



    -----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

   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.


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