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

["Beckwith, Bruce" <bbeckwith@verisign.com>]

Tim,

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 data.

Regards,

Bruce

 -----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 data.

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.

Tim