[registrars] terms of reference for task force on data mining

[Jean-Michel Becar]

>I don't care what the purpose of the port-43 data mining is.  Data mining >of
>whois data via port-43 should be prohibited. Period.  This includes
>Registrars.
Keep in mind that sometimes we need to mine port 43 for bulk transfer.
So restricting access to port 43 for registrars too won't work.

my 2 cents.

tbarrett wrote:

>Bruce,
>
>Here are my comments.
>
>Many Registrars already severely restrict access to port-43.  If the
>description below is endorsed by the task force, then more registrars will
>follow this trend.
>
>The issue is with the phrase "data mining for the purposes of marketing".
>Who decides when a purpose qualifies as "marketing"?
>
>I don't care what the purpose of the port-43 data mining is.  Data mining of
>whois data via port-43 should be prohibited. Period.  This includes
>Registrars.
>
>Essentially this description is saying that it is OK to data mine whois data
>via port-43, such as for fee-based commercial searching and monitoring
>services as long as its not for "marketing".  This is a huge loophole.
>
>The Bulk access provision exists to satisfy any and all legal uses of the
>whois data.  Any entity circumventing this provision to obtain the data via
>port-43 FOR ANY REASON, is doing so to avoid paying the registrar for the
>data.    
>
>This should be acknowledged in the description below and addressed.  
>
>Sincerely,
>
>Tom Barrett
>EnCirca
>
>
>
>
>
>	
>
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: owner-registrars at gnso.icann.org
>[mailto:owner-registrars at gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Bruce Tonkin
>Sent: Wednesday, October 22, 2003 5:52 AM
>To: Registrars Constituency
>Subject: [registrars] terms of reference for task force on data mining
>
>
>
>Hello All,
>
>The GNSO WHOIS steering group is finalising the terms of references for
>three areas of activity.
>- data mining
>- data colleted and displayed (core privacy issue)
>- accuracy
>
>The text below is for the first of those areas, and will be considered by
>the GNSO Council in Carthage for possible consideration.  The text for the
>other two areas will be available within 24 hours.
>
>Regards,
>Bruce
>Registrars Representative on the GNSO Council
>
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Bruce Tonkin 
>Sent: Wednesday, 22 October 2003 7:49 PM
>To: 'council at gnso.icann.org'
>Subject: WHOIS area 1 terms of reference
>
>
>For consideration at the Council meeting on 29 Oct 2003.  Note the text
>assumes that the area will be treated within a separate task force. The
>Council may decide to combine the three areas into a single task force.
>
>Regards,
>Bruce
> 
>
>Title: Restricting access to WHOIS data for marketing purposes
>
>Participants:
>- 1 representative from each constituency
>- ALAC liaison
>- GAC liaison
>- ccNSO liaison
>- SECSAC liaison
>- liaisons from other GNSO WHOIS task forces
>
>Description of Task Force:
>==========================
>
>In the recent policy recommendations relating to WHOIS:
>(see http://www.icann.org/gnso/whois-tf/report-19feb03.htm)
>it was decided that the use of bulk access WHOIS data for marketing should
>not be permitted.  However, these recommendations did not directly address
>the issue of marketing uses of Whois data obtained through either of the
>other contractually required means of access: Port 43 and web-based. Bulk
>access under license may be only a minor contributor to the perceived
>problem of use of Whois data for marketing purposes. A subset of a
>registrar's Whois database that is sufficiently large for data mining
>purposes may be obtained through other means, such as a combination of using
>free zonefile access (via signing a registry zonefile access agreement - the
>number of these in existence approaches 1000 per major registry) to obtain a
>list of domains, and then using anonymous (public) access to either port-43
>or interactive web pages to retrieve large volumes of contact information.
>Once the information is initially obtained it can be kept up-to-date by
>detecting changes in the zonefile, and only retrieving information
>related to the changed records.   This process is often described as
>"data mining".  The net effect is that large numbers of Whois records are
>easily available for marketing purposes, and generally on an anonymous basis
>(the holders of this information are unknown).
>
>The purpose of this task force is to determine what contractual changes (if
>any) are required to allow registrars to protect domain name holder data
>from data mining for the purposes of marketing  The focus is on the
>technological means that may be applied to achieve these objectives and
>whether any contractual changes are needed to accommodate them.  
>
>In-scope
>========
>The purpose of this section to clarify the issues should be considered in
>proposing any policy changes.
>
>The task force should consider the effects of any proposed policy changes on
>the ability of groups such as law enforcement, intellectual property,
>internet service providers, and consumers to continue to retrieve
>information necessary to perform their functions.
>
>The task force should consider the effects of any proposed policy changes on
>the competitive provision of domain name services including WHOIS access and
>transfers, and on the competitive provision of value-added services using
>WHOIS information.
>
>
>Out-of-scope
>============
>To ensure that the task force remains narrowly focussed to ensure that its
>goal is reasonably achievable and within a reasonable time frame, it is
>necessary to be clear on what is not in scope for the task force.
>
>The task force should not aim to specify a technical solution.  This is the
>role of registries and registrars in a competitive market, and the role of
>technical standardisation bodies such as the IETF.  Note the IETF presently
>has a working group called CRISP to develop an improved protocol that should
>be capable of implementing the policy outcomes of this task force. However,
>the task force should seek to achieve an understanding of the various
>technological means that could be applied to prevent or inhibit data mining
>with an eye toward evaluating their impact on other uses and their
>compatibility with the currently applicable contracts.
>
>
>The task force should not review the current bulk access agreement
>Provisions, except to the extent that these can be improved to enhance
>protection against marketing uses and to facilitate other uses.   These
>were
>the subject of a recent update in policy in March 2003.
>
>The task force should not study the amount of data available for public
>(anonymous) access for single queries.  Any changes to the data collected or
>made available will be the subject of a separate policy development process.
>
>Tasks/Milestones
>================
>
>- collect requirements (e.g., volume, frequency, format of query
>results) from non-marketing users of contact information (this could be
>extracted from the Montreal workshop and also by GNSO constituencies, and
>should also include accessibility requirements (e.g based on W3C
>standards) [milestone  1 date]
>- review general approaches to prevent automated electronic data mining and
>ensure that the requirements for access are met (including accessibility
>requirements for those that may for example be visually
>impaired)
>[milestone 2 date]
>- determine whether any changes are required in the contracts to allow
>the approaches to be used above   (for example the contracts require the
>use of the port-43 WHOIS protocol and this may not support approaches to
>prevent data mining) [milestone 3 date]
>
>Each milestone should be subject to development internally by the task
>force, along with appropriate public comment processes (e.g seeking specific
>advice from the technical community, or from WHOIS service
>operators)  to ensure that as much input as possible is taken into account.
>
>
>  
>

-- 
Jean-Michel Becar
Senior Architect
Global Media Online INC.
Tokyo - 150-8512
Tel: +81 (0)3 5456 2687