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

["Bhavin Turakhia" <bhavin.t@directi.com>]

hi bruce,

a beter way to nip this one in the bud would be

INSTEAD OF TELLING US (and that was a quick response) how Verisign DID NOT
GET THIS DATA - if they could tell us HOW THEY GOT THIS DATA

bhavin

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-registrars@dnso.org [mailto:owner-registrars@dnso.org]On
> Behalf Of Beckwith, Bruce
> Sent: Wednesday, April 17, 2002 10:11 PM
> To: Registrars@dnso.org
> Subject: RE: [registrars] Fw: [nc-whois] useful information/link
>
>
> Let's nip this one in the bud.
>
> We do provide a lookup in our whois
> (http://www.netsol.com/cgi-bin/whois/whois), even if it is not a
> domain that
> we have registered, which is a functionality that our customers have
> requested, however, we do not store or in any way track or utilize that
> data.
>
> Regards,
>
> Bruce
>
>  -----Original Message-----
> From: 	Tom Chaffin [mailto:tchaffin@stargateinc.com]
> Sent:	Wednesday, April 17, 2002 12:00 PM
> To:	Registrars@dnso.org
> Subject:	RE: [registrars] Fw: [nc-whois] useful information/link
>
> 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
>