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

["Tom Chaffin" <tchaffin@stargateinc.com>]

Just a thought...

Verisign has one of the most widely used web based whois servers.  It
provides access to almost every registrar's port 43 whois. Verisign could
easily log every response processed and utilize that data.

Tom

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-registrars@dnso.org [mailto:owner-registrars@dnso.org]On
Behalf Of Ross Wm. Rader
Sent: Wednesday, April 17, 2002 10:15 AM
To: tim@godaddy.com; bbeckwith@verisign.com
Cc: Registrars@dnso.org
Subject: Re: [registrars] Fw: [nc-whois] useful information/link


I'm more interested in Tim's original question...

"how [Verisign] got the data in the first place."

-rwr

----- Original Message -----
From: "Tim Ruiz" <tim@godaddy.com>
To: <bbeckwith@verisign.com>
Cc: <Registrars@dnso.org>
Sent: Wednesday, April 17, 2002 10:57 AM
Subject: 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
>
>
>


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.349 / Virus Database: 195 - Release Date: 4/15/2002