RE: [nc-whois] Summary of Comments: Searchability

["Cade,Marilyn S - LGA" <mcade@att.com>]

Thanks, Abel. I appreciate the limitations to time and technology. Both Tony and I have been experiencing them as well.

Having a summary for the GA means really, that you should also consult with Thomas and Kristy... so we leave that to the three of you to work out how best to proceed.

On where we are in terms of recommendations and drafting, let's see where we are tomorrow.

An alert to all TF members: it is our intent to  assign some other work items to members of the TF :  

After further consultation with Tony, I am envisioning our asking: Abel, Sarah, Ken, Tim, Philip to have you do some review of the archived open calls, for instance, and advise and summarize in relation to each of the four areas. There were several transcription calls where you can I hope, race through whatever isn't already documented... 

Ram will also need some help on his section. 
Marilyn




-----Original Message-----
From: Abel Wisman [mailto:abel@able-towers.com]
Sent: Sunday, November 24, 2002 7:39 PM
To: 'Thomas Roessler'; nc-whois@dnso.org
Subject: RE: [nc-whois] Summary of Comments: Searchability


First of all , thank you Thomas, 

Secondly sorry for my absence over the weekend but while installing a
hotel-network and connecting the rooms up I had quite some naty
experiences among which the death of my 5 month old notebook screen,
which makes work almost impossible but adequate work on whois tasks even
worse.

Therefore I have not done what I wanted to do, but I am back and have a
few hours time.

As far as I am concerned, and despite all the hard work we out in to
this until now, (the searchability) I feel very related to the comments
from various angles as listed below and to which we should add the
comments made on the GA-list by (among others) Karl Auerbach.

I am also trying to compile a contsituency report for the GA, which will
include these comments. (in view of the constituency reports asked)

Despite our willingness and the ideas behind the searchability report,
we have not come up with something that can be described as well
fundamented towards all conclusions.

We have not had time to do in-depth research into possible cost, higher
bandwidth usage processor usage of extended queries and what more.
We have not had the time to do more then "explore" the possibilities.

Based upon the RAA and the description therein for delivery of
whois-service we can safely conclude that the orginial rfc 954 was the
base for thinking when this was put in.

Based upon that we could in the intermediate term perhaps do some
research towards more globally cross-registry whois searchability,
without immediately extending the search capabilites.

In other words it would be nice if we could talk to some cc-tld's about
willingness and some tech-people and/or IETF perhaps, about globalizing
the whois standard format.
This should not have to lead to hightened cost for anyone since most
g-tld's already have the obligation and a lot of cc-tld's already have a
similar service in place.

Enhanced searchability is mostly required by "interested" parties, who
in most cases are IP related companies, who in turn make this knowledge
into a product, for which imo they can afford to pay, should the data be
made available for such queries.
It was however never the intention of the rfc to be a private police
force database.

Using the correct legal formalities I am sure Tucows will tell the IP
community how many domains I own and you can then for yourself find out
what I do with them.

It is therefore my opinion that we should only draw concensus
conclusions on this topic where possible and make a separate issue
report for the remainder.

Perhaps we can work on that over the next few days (the issue report)
and "slim" down our current section, due to the workload on other
topics.

Kind regards

Abel




-----Original Message-----
From: owner-nc-whois@dnso.org [mailto:owner-nc-whois@dnso.org] On Behalf
Of Thomas Roessler
Sent: 24 November 2002 23:40
To: nc-whois@dnso.org
Subject: [nc-whois] Summary of Comments: Searchability


(Since most of the comments were quite brief already, I've frequently
taken the easy approach and just cut & pasted the relevant sections.)



http://www.dnso.org/dnso/dnsocomments/comments-whois/Arc01/msg00004.html
http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc10/msg03717.html

The author of this comment, Vittorio Bertola, "cannot see any need for
better searchability of WHOIS databases, and especially for queries that
might return more than one domain name at a time." Mr. Bertola then goes
on to make a number of statements on access to WHOIS data in general.



http://www.dnso.org/dnso/dnsocomments/comments-whois/Arc01/msg00016.html

In this comment, the International Trademark Association supports the
recommendation "that searchability is needed on additional elements
beyond domain names.  It should be possible, for example to search using
the name of the registrant. Such a function could help a trademark owner
determine whether a particular individual has developed a pattern of
cybersquatting, which is an indicator of bad faith under the Uniform
Dispute Resolution Policy."


http://www.dnso.org/dnso/dnsocomments/comments-whois/Arc01/msg00028.html

This statement, submitted on behalf of the New York Intellectual
Property Law Association, Internet Law Committee, recommends that 
"public access to whois databases at the very least be restored to the
level maintained before creation of the shared registry system, if not
indeed enhanced beyond such minimal threshold levels." The rest of the
Committee's statement generally discusses access to WHOIS data, and
argues -- based on US law -- that WHOIS record should be considered as
"public records."


http://www.dnso.org/dnso/dnsocomments/comments-whois/Arc01/msg00029.html

The Intellectual Property constituency supports the the recommendation
"that searchability is needed on additional elements beyond domain
names", in the same words already known from the INTA statement.  The
IPC in particular supports recommendation 3 (B).


http://www.dnso.org/dnso/dnsocomments/comments-whois/Arc01/msg00030.html
http://www.dnso.org/dnso/dnsocomments/comments-whois/Arc01/doc00003.doc

This comment was submitted on behalf of Tucows.  With respect to
extended search services, Tucows asks whether the Task Force has
examined the "distributed/coordinated" model of Whois.  With respect to
the suggested swift development of cross-registry WHOIS services, Tucows
asks for an analysis of the impact and desirability of such services.
Concerning the interim recommendation "brief examination to any barriers
to further additions to these services be undertaken," Tucows notes
"obvious technical, social and economic impacts" of such services, and
questions the appropriateness of a "brief" examination.


http://www.dnso.org/dnso/dnsocomments/comments-whois/Arc01/msg00032.html
http://www.dnso.org/dnso/dnsocomments/comments-whois/Arc01/doc00004.doc
http://www.dnso.org/dnso/dnsocomments/comments-whois/Arc01/doc00005.doc

The gTLD registries constituency notes that better searchability of
WHOIS databases could have "the unintended effect of making it easier
for spammers to spam." Additionally, it is observed that the expired
Internet-Draft quoted in the interim report is not an RFC and not an
authoritative reference.


http://www.dnso.org/dnso/dnsocomments/comments-whois/Arc01/msg00034.html

This Time, Inc. comment supports that "Registrars should provide for a
broader menu of searchability, for example, by Registrant", and asks for
whois access to all gTLDs and ccTLDs.



http://www.dnso.org/dnso/dnsocomments/comments-whois/Arc01/msg00035.html

This comment, submitted by Erin S. Hennessy on behalf of Warner Music
Group, supports broader searchability in the same words known from the
INTA comment.


http://www.dnso.org/dnso/dnsocomments/comments-whois/Arc01/msg00036.html

"MPAA supports the three kinds of improved searchability called for by
the Whois Survey respondents and highlighted in the Interim Report.
Continued work should be encouraged to provide query-based Whois search
functionality across registrars and registries. Existing policy should
also be reinforced to restore Whois functionality to allow for searching
additional elements beyond the domain name field.  Such functionality is
important to trademark owners in proving a pattern of infringement -
which is identified as being demonstrative of bad faith under both the
UDRP and the U.S. Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act - and for
copyright owners in investigating serial infringers.  As indicated by
the Interim Report, realization of such functionality would be a
restoration of the InterNIC Whois status quo ante.  Finally, MPAA
supports the recommendation for more advanced database query
capabilities and centralized search services across TLDs, including
ccTLDs.  Several of the new gTLDs have committed to offer advanced query
capabilities.  The implementation of those offerings should be monitored
and, to the extent they prove successful, they might be looked to as
models for broader implementation."


http://www.dnso.org/dnso/dnsocomments/comments-whois/Arc01/msg00037.html

"In addition to accuracy and uniformity, ease of use is essential for us
[Time4 Media] in resolving trademark or domain name disputes, as well as
in promoting progress in the area of Internet commerce and
communications.  T4M supports the task force recommendation that broader
searchability is needed for search fields other than the domain names,
including searching on registrants' names.  Such a function is necessary
in that it aids us as trademark owners in determining i) whether an
individual or company is in a field of business that relates to our own,
and ii) whether it has developed a pattern of cybersquatting, which is
an indicator of bad faith under the Uniform Dispute Resolution Policy.
We agree with the Interim Report that the current obligations to provide
this increased searchability should be enforced."


http://www.dnso.org/dnso/dnsocomments/comments-whois/Arc01/msg00039.html

This comment, submitted on behalf of the members of the Software &
Information Industry Association, mirrors the INTA and MPAA comments, as
far as extended searchability of the WHOIS database is concerned.


http://www.dnso.org/dnso/dnsocomments/comments-whois/Arc01/msg00040.html

This comment was submitted Rick Wesson.  On Searchability, Mr. Wesson
notes: "Full searchability of the whois has been mistakenly identified
as a service that previously existed. The task-force appears to have
been misguided by interests looking for additional FREE services that
have never existed. Mandating the creation of new FREE services should
be done with a critical eye, as market forces applied with appropriate
fee-based incentives appear to work in many industries instead of
mandating free and unfettered access to new services."


http://www.dnso.org/dnso/dnsocomments/comments-whois/Arc01/msg00042.html
http://www.dnso.org/dnso/dnsocomments/comments-whois/Arc01/doc00007.doc

This comment was submitted on behalf of the Domain Names and Trade-marks
on the Internet Committee of the Intellectual Property Institute of
Canada.  Concerning extended searchability, "all the three enumerated
kinds of improved searchability are necessary.  At a minimum, search
capabilities that were previously available should be restored."


http://www.dnso.org/dnso/dnsocomments/comments-whois/Arc01/msg00046.html

In this comment, Mr. Stahura (enom) remarks that "There is no provision
currently that mandates that registrar's whois data is allowed to be
searchable by any data elements besides domain name, therefore there is
nothing to 'enforce'." Mr. Stahura cautions that "searching by other
elements and returning multiple names and whois records for each search
will place additional load on servers and cost money for each registrar
to develop. It will also lead to more spamming, email and phone, because
large numbers of records can be gathered easily." A negative impact on
WHOIS accuracy is expected. Concerning searches by IP address and name
server, Mr. Stahura suggests that such a service could easily be built
by data users, based on information present in zone files.


-- 
Thomas Roessler                        <roessler@does-not-exist.org>