<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
RE: [registrars] Fw: [nc-whois] useful information/link
Bruce,
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
otherwise."
Note the word "otherwise."
Tim
-------- 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
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
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|