Re: [registrars] Whois teleconference call details, agenda and participants

[Eric Brunner-Williams in Portland Maine <brunner@nic-naa.net>]

Ross,

To the (short) list of interest groups engaged in

	"pursuing infringers and enforcing [] rights"

and

	"engaged in investigative and enforcement activities"

I suggest adding MTA providing ISPs (and domain name consuming ASPs who's
business model is similarly MTA-centric), as well as MTA/MDA/MUA vendors
and email user groups, under the general rubric of the "spam problem".

I'm going to be herding kindergardeners today, so I won't be on the call.

I have some thoughts (natch).

1. 954 (the 1985 US DoD spec) is part of the problem, because it mandates
the data be "there", and it mandates an interface that made sense back in
the controlled ARPA/DARPA/MIL network community, eons before the CIX set
of agreements, a domain name industry, or commercial spam.

2. The per-database problem can be solved independently of the which-one
problem.

3. Homogenaity of response formats is not necessary, it is simply a cost
to be borne by either the provider industry, or by the consumer industries,
and aggregation can be a service business.

4. whois:43 mining is a small part of the spam problem, but it is not zero.

5. We did EPP privately first, getting principles down between the eventual
users (CNO/INFO/BIZ/NAME/PRO), _before_ going to the IETF and taking both
the benefits, and costs, of that body's process.


Good luck herding post-kindergardeners today.

Eric