Re: [registrars] Shanghai Agenda

["Ross Wm. Rader" <ross@tucows.com>]

I would also appreciate some historical perspective from someone on the
ICANN staff on these two matters. As we all know, a lot of these policies
are artifacts of the introduction of competition via the creation of ICANN
and the ensuing agreements with Verisign and the competitive registrars.
Understanding the problems-space that these requirements initially attempted
to resolve will be important going forward.

Dan?


                       -rwr




"There's a fine line between fishing and standing on the shore like an
idiot."
- Steven Wright

Got Blog? http://www.byte.org/blog

Please review our ICANN Reform Proposal:
http://www.byte.org/heathrow



----- Original Message -----
From: "Beckwith, Bruce" <bbeckwith@verisign.com>
To: <registrars@dnso.org>
Sent: Tuesday, October 22, 2002 6:28 PM
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
> >