Re: [ga] whois: issues with uniformity

[Jeff Williams <jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com>]

Abel and all former DNSO GA members,

Abel Wisman wrote:

> This has to be the umpteenth time these "arguments" have been used, and
> never to the satisfaction of anyone except the ones using them.

  This is rather a profound and unsubstantiated statement IMHO.
Indeed I would disagree, not to your surprise I am sure Abel..
I would tend to disagree because this issue 3 years ago wasn't
even being discussed anywhere I know of in relation to Whois.
Now, and of the past 2 years, it is debated, discussed in a number
of circles, suits have been filed, won, lost around this issue...

>
>
> The examples given are "nonsensical" at best, complaining to the "owner"
> of a "spamvertized" domain is about the same as reacting to the "if you
> want to be removed" line at the bottom of most.

  Again this seem to me to be a gross overstatement as well...  Indeed
most of the time when I personally have responded to the "if you
want to be removed" line at the bottom of a spam mail my request
is acted upon.

>
>
> Finding the domain owner when nameservers are down doesn't do you one
> bit of good, most of them (99.98%) do not run those servers and
> therefore can't do a thing and if anyone setting up a domain/dns file
> does not have a "hostmaster@" address set, they don't deserve any
> warning on "down" sites.

  You have a very good point here...

>
>
> The attacks are normally spoofed so a decent ip tracking and an
> IP-search will lead you to the IP-block "owner" and therefore far more
> usefull contact points.

  Sometimes yes, and sometimes no...

>
>
> Furthermore on CRISP: this is a WG that is "discussing" how it will
> define a standard mechanism that can be used for finding authoritative
> information associated with a label, a protocol to transport queries and
> responses for accessing that information, and a first profile (schema &
> queries) to support commonly-required queries for domain registration
> information.
>
> It is not a solution for current problems, because it is years away, if
> not eternity, from reaching adulthood and it states itself it will not
> be backward compatible with whois.
>
> For now we have whois, which basic setup was ok, but has been abused
> over the years.
> Adeption of some simple "agreements" to the use/display of the whois
> content could solve most problems with that whois.
>
> If one reads the original rfc one will notice that each used field had a
> usage, and non was ever containing the "owner's" address and email, for
> the simple reason that the owner was not an interesting entity for the
> usage of which whois was designed for.
>
> It was not until later in the development that people were "allowed" to
> fill in the other then owner fileds themselves, thus losing all sensible
> uses for whois. The registry of that moment is "to blame" for that
> development, not whois itself.

  Very well argued and presented here Abel.  I have heard this similar
argument from a number of our members in various forms, many times.
But my concern with this argument is that registries are run/operated
by people.  Most of those now are ICANN'ites of various flavors
due to the lottery selection of new TLD's fiasco in MdR2000.  Hence
the political impetus coming indirectly from those registry people,
contracted
to ICANN and therefore obligated to a degree to ICANN are predisposed
to pull the ICANN line.  And for the most part they do...

>
>
> If usage of the fields would be restored to their original purpose and
> content, then a lot of problems would be solved outright.

  I also agree with you here as well.  But this is not likely now..

>
>
> As for "cross-registry" searches, depending on the depth of that "need"
> one needs the willing co-operation of all registries in the world,
> something that is not likely to happen, due to local laws and political
> situations.

  Perhaps so.  Yet cooperation from ICANN gTLD registries will be
made mandatory or at least contractually obligated... And some ccTLD's
will eventually find their way into the ICANN fold unless another
Root structure becomes more attractive...

>
>
> It would be a good thing if the "search-strings" and "formats" would be
> alike and for many cc-tld's this is already the case.
> More indepth searchability is in my opinion something that is a
> commercial venture development and therefore most likley not suitable
> for any policy.
>
> CRISP would fit such a bill, perhaps that is why VRGS is sponsoring it.
>
> If you want to learn more about the work on whois, and make an impact of
> no matter how big a size on the development of current whois, then you
> are invited to read the whois TF maillist and submit comments to that
> TF, which can still be done.

  Just another black hole and in fact does not actually work.  Seems
only some very few participants are allowed to post to nc-whois@dnso.org

>
>
> For now, whois is two things: a rfc to which most countries are
> sensitive enough to have such a feature enabled and a contractual
> obligation for g-tld's which most of them are unhappy with, demands on
> the databases for the latter group would be for commercial reasons higly
> unacceptable for those parties and with very good reasons, whether we
> adhere to that or not.
>
> Kind regards
>
> Abel Wisman
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-ga-full@dnso.org [mailto:owner-ga-full@dnso.org] On Behalf
> Of Stephane Bortzmeyer
> Sent: 27 December 2002 12:34
> To: Vittorio Bertola
> Cc: Stephane Bortzmeyer; ga@dnso.org
> Subject: Re: [ga] whois: issues with uniformity
>
> On Fri, Dec 27, 2002 at 10:44:44AM +0100,
>  Vittorio Bertola <vb@bertola.eu.org> wrote
>  a message of 75 lines which said:
>
> > The reasons given there are: "protection of intellectual property
> > rights, consumer protection issues, investigation of illegal
> > activities as well as daily routine business".
>
> Let's expand a typical "daily routine business". You receive a spam
> which advertises an email address in hotsex@coldmail.com. You want to
> complain to the people at coldmail.com. It is very convenient to find an
> email address.
>
> Or the email to myfriend@somewhere.bj bounces and you see that all the
> nameservers of somewhere.bj are broken. It is very convenient to find
> either an email address in another domain or a fax number to warn them.
>
> (Do note that I gave examples where you know the domain. If you know the
> IP address, such as when you are attacked by
> Nimda/CodeRed/Microsoft-worm-of-the-day, you need also a whois entry.
> They are provided by the RIRs which, unfortunately, are not the object
> of the same public scrutiny as the ICANN.)
>
> > The first three ones are good, but once you publish the name of the
> > registrant, and perhaps a postal address, they have been satisfied.
> > There's no need for my e-mail or telephone number.
>
> I disagree.
>
> > breach of law, you can go to the police - they should have
>
> Do note that, of the typical situations I gave as example, only one is a
> (possible) breach of the law.
>
> > >At least one very good reason: although not perfect, IETF is *much*
> > >more democratic than ICANN. In the IETF, at-large participation (with
>
> > >all its limits and its problems) is a reality for many years.
> >
> > But it is a participation limited to a very technical environment. If
> > this was enough, there would be no need for ICANN in the first place
>
> Before ICANN, the root of the DNS was not managed by the IETF but by
> another private US company.
>
> > Now, we all know that ICANN has failed to build consensus around
> > itself,
>
> This is the understatement of the century :-)
>
> > doubtful and yet to be proved. But this doesn't mean that the idea of
> > a global policy forum, where only issues that strictly need global
> > coordination are discussed, and where not just technical people are
> > involved, is bad. (And please note that I *am* a technical person :) )
>
> I do not see the issue as "technical persons who know better against the
> ignorant mob of dummies". The good thing about IETF is not that it is
> technical, it is that it tries to be democratic.
>
> I agree that it would be nice to have a global (non technical) policy
> body. But it does not exist. And ICANN does not show the slightest sign
> of being able to be that body.
>
> (Do note that I wrote "body" and not "forum": we have many forums, such
> as this former GA list, icannwatch.org, etc. But forums are places to
> talk, not to take decisions.)
>
> > ICANN, even if slowly, is starting to build instruments
> > for real public participation, and perhaps even funding them. If you
> > want to go to the IETF as a user, you have to pay your trip.
>
> I wasn't aware that ICANN has a budget for trips to Rio de Janeiro. I
> will not apply, we have enough money in Europe, but does it mean that
> people from Asia or Africa will be able to receive financial help for
> the trip? On what grounds will the applications be accepted/refused?
>
> > >This is why I directed people from the former GA toward the CRISP
> > >woking group so they can provide useful input.
> >
> > Is there still time, for example, to get amendments to that draft? Or
> > is it too late?
>
> I believe there is time. Thomas Roessler's proposal about
> internationalization seems to have been accepted quite easily.
>
>
> --
> This message was passed to you via the ga-full@dnso.org list. Send mail
> to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe ("unsubscribe ga-full" in the body
> of the message). Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
>
> --
> This message was passed to you via the ga@dnso.org list.
> Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

Regards,

--
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman for INEGroup - (Over 127k members/stakeholders strong!)
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com
Contact Number: 214-244-4827 or 972-244-3801
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208


--
This message was passed to you via the ga@dnso.org list.
Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html