[Rt4-whois] Centralized Whois Query system run by ICANN - Scope and concerns

[Omar Kaminski]

+1, I agree with James. The whois query issues should be more
clarified and this is a core point IMO.

Omar


2011/11/30 Mikhail Yakushev <m.yakushev at corp.mail.ru>:
> Dear colleagues – I also do agree with Kathy’s approach, but at the same
> time I support James’ concerns on the lack of lack of clarity on who in
> ICANN should do what.
>
> Unfortunately, I cannot formulate all possible answers to such open
> questions, but I am ready to participate if Kathy takes the lead to make her
> proposal more precise.
>
> Rgds,
>
> Michael
>
>
>
> From: rt4-whois-bounces at icann.org [mailto:rt4-whois-bounces at icann.org] On
> Behalf Of James M. Bladel
> Sent: Wednesday, November 30, 2011 7:06 PM
> To: Kathy Kleiman
> Cc: rt4-whois at icann.org
>
>
> Subject: Re: [Rt4-whois] Centralized Whois Query system run by ICANN - Scope
> and concerns
>
>
>
> I don't oppose this recommendation, but my issue with this is that we are
> once again being too vague in what we're asking.
>
>
>
> ICANN:    Who?  Staff?  The Board? The GNSO?  Contracted 3rd party?
>
>
>
> Set up:  How?  By launching a PDP?  Sending out an RFP?
>
>
>
> Deadline?
>
>
>
> Are we confident that this group has considered all of the consequences to
> privacy, security, access, SLAs, etc.?  (Reasons why a PDP can be more
> helpful for things like this...)
>
>
>
> Thanks--
>
>
> J.
>
>
>
> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: Re: [Rt4-whois] Centralized Whois Query system run by ICANN -
> Scope and concerns
> From: Kathy Kleiman <kathy at kathykleiman.com>
> Date: Wed, November 30, 2011 9:56 am
> To: rt4-whois at icann.org
>
> All,
> Is this the current version of the Lutz proposal now in circulation? I
> thought it applied only to a centralized database of the current "thin
> registries," namely .COM and .NET. If so, I can see the advantages and
> support sending it out as a recommendation in the draft report.
>
> But if this is a single database of all registries, thick and thin, now
> and in the future, I think we creating a database problem. It's an
> enormous amount of data and creates a focal point for abuse, for
> warehousing, etc. It's the type of policing job that ICANN has never had
> to do, and is not operationally set up to do.
>
> So thought summary: If ICANN is helping remedy a bad situation by
> operating a single registry for .COM and .NET to fix a historical
> problem, I think I am OK for now (pending review of the draft with
> registries -- after publication is fine). One database of all Whois
> information to Rule the World, not so good.
>
> RECOMMENDATION EDIT:
>
> Detailed recommendation:
> ICANN should set up a dedicated, multilingual website to allow
> "unrestricted and public access to accurate and complete WHOIS
> information" **FOR .COM AND .NET, THE EXISTING "THIN REGISTRIES"** even for
> those people which have problems with the plain
> WHOIS protocol.
>
> The WHOIS information should be collected by following the thin WHOIS
> approach starting at whois.iana.org. The service should display the
> contractural relationships which are revealed by the WHOIS referals in
> a clear and understandable way. The results should be mark clearly the
> relevant information "including registrant, technical, ** DELETE BILLING**
> billing, and
> administrative contact" data.
>
> ** NOTE: Billing data, which includes credit cards Folks, is simply not
> displayed in any other Whois search results. It is only registrant,
> technical, and admin contact.**
>
> Best,
> Kathy
>
>
>> Proposal:
>>
>> Summary:
>> ICANN should set up and maintain a web interface to access
>> all the WHOIS services in order to ease access to the WHOIS data.
>>
>> Presumption:
>> The AoC requires that "ICANN implement measures to maintain timely,
>> unrestricted and public access to accurate and complete WHOIS information,
>> including registrant, technical, billing, and administrative contact
>> information."
>>
>> Observation:
>> An User Insight Report came up with the following results:
>> + Almost nobody is aware of whois
>> + Almost nobody is able to query a whois server correctly
>> + Whois queries were done on websites which occur first in the search
>> engine results. Usually those pages are overloaded with advertisments.
>>
>> Detailed recommendation:
>> ICANN should set up a dedicated, multilingual website to allow
>> "unrestricted and public access to accurate and complete WHOIS
>> information" even for those people which have problems with the plain
>> WHOIS protocol.
>>
>> The WHOIS information should be collected by following the thin WHOIS
>> approach starting at whois.iana.org. The service should display the
>> contractural relationships which are revealed by the WHOIS referals in
>> a clear and understandable way. The results should be mark clearly the
>> relevant information "including registrant, technical, billing, and
>> administrative contact" data.
>>
>> The server needs to be run by ICANN itself, because the "timely,
>> unrestricted and public access" is usually rate limited, stripped or even
>> blocked by the various WHOIS server administrators for uncontractual
>> third party access. ICANN itself is the only party having the power to
>> overcome those limits using its contratual compliance.
>> _______________________________________________
>> Rt4-whois mailing list
>> Rt4-whois at icann.org
>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/rt4-whois
>
>
> --
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Rt4-whois mailing list
> Rt4-whois at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/rt4-whois
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Rt4-whois mailing list
> Rt4-whois at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/rt4-whois
>