RE: [registrars] Shanghai Agenda

["Tim Ruiz" <tim@godaddy.com>]

We agree that both topics would be good to discuss. The original purpose for
Bulk Whois access no longer appears relevant, and port 43 access has just
gotten out of control.

For example, we have one web traffic software developer who continually
attempts to query data at rates as high as 10 per minute. Point is, most
registrars have already put limits in place, but unfortunately it plays
havoc at times with legitimate business, such as transfer processing. We
need to work towards a better alternative.

Tim

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-registrars@dnso.org [mailto:owner-registrars@dnso.org]On
Behalf Of Beckwith, Bruce
Sent: Tuesday, October 22, 2002 5:28 PM
To: registrars@dnso.org
Subject: RE: [registrars] Shanghai Agenda


Rick,

There were several registrars at both meetings that questioned whether or
not there was a legitimate need to have Bulk WhoIs available.  In fact, very
few registrars currently make the file available (for the record, the
VeriSign Registrar has a large number of contracts with parties who do get
our bulk whois).  This topic got some discussion about the relevance and the
need for this access.  My recollection is that the strongest opponents to
having it available were the registrars with 500,000 to 3,000,000
registrations who do not want to have to make their customer data available
to others.  It seems a good topic to discuss, since it is an industry
concern.

The other topic, Port 43 access, was discussed by several folks, including
myself, on behalf of the VeriSign Registrar.  It appears that much of the
data mining and data harvesting that is currently underway is being done via
Port 43.  To be able to discuss alternatives for legitimate users, while
perhaps having strict limits on Port 43 access (i.e., daily query limits per
IP that are reasonable for most casual Internet users), with other methods
of access for entities that require more robust access (i.e., Law
Enforcement, IP community, network operators, other registrars), seems
appropriate.  Another topic that affects the industry that perhaps would be
beneficial to discuss.

Perhaps some of the other folks that discussed these topics wishes to
weigh-in.

Regards,

Bruce

-----Original Message-----
From: Rick Wesson [mailto:wessorh@ar.com]
Sent: Tuesday, October 22, 2002 6:16 PM
To: Beckwith, Bruce
Cc: registrars@dnso.org
Subject: RE: [registrars] Shanghai Agenda



Bruce,

could you dig a little deeper into those two topics for the folks that
did not attend the FTC meeting or Amsterdam? Whic aspects do you want
discussed, do you advocate a piticular position with either topic?

thanks,

-rick

On Tue, 22 Oct 2002, Beckwith, Bruce wrote:

> Mike,
>
> Would you also please consider devoting some time during the Registrar
> Constituency meeting to the following two topics, which were discussed
some
> at the FTC meeting, as well as touched on during the Amsterdam meeting:
>
> - Bulk WhoIs Requirement
> - Port 43 Access
>
> Thanks.
>
> Regards,
>
> Bruce
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Michael D. Palage [mailto:michael@palage.com]
> Sent: Friday, October 18, 2002 9:29 AM
> To: registrars@dnso.org
> Subject: [registrars] Shanghai Agenda
>
>
> Hello All:
>
> I should have the agenda for Shanghai's meeting finalized by Monday after
> the next Registrar Constituency Executive Call. Current topics on the
> agenda: ICANN reform; update on transfers and Whois Task Forces;
initiation
> of deletes task force; .org transition; and whois update (CRISP/Universal
> Whois). An additional topic that I believe is worth wild to add in new
TLDs.
> Bret Fausett has recently published an article on principle' concerning
the
> new TLD process, see http://www.lextext.com/newTLDdiscussionpaper.html. I
> believe that it is a document that many should read as I believe it is
worth
> the constituency backing it. If there are any other topic anyone would
like
> added to the agenda, please let me know.
>
> Best regards,
>
> Michael D. Palage
>