[Rt4-whois] Centralized Whois Query system run by ICANN - Scope and concerns
Kathy Kleiman
kathy at kathykleiman.com
Wed Nov 30 16:31:35 UTC 2011
I could support a recommendation of an issues report on a centralized
Whois system for .COM and .NET, to remedy the historical problems, but
not for all gTLD database.
We take the first step; a later group may take it farther.
Best,
Kathy
No, I don't think we should attempt to answer these questions in RT4,
nor presume that we have even identified all of the dependent questions.
>
> I believe our recommendation should task the Board, within a
> reasonable timeframe (90 days?), to request an issues report on a
> Centralized WHOIS system for all gTLDs, including how it should be
> operated and what measures would be adopted to protect against abuse /
> privacy violations / data harvesting.
>
> (This will initiate a PDP which, while slower, will be a more
> comprehensive approach)
>
> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: Re: [Rt4-whois] Centralized Whois Query system run by ICANN -
> Scope and concerns
> From: Emily Taylor <emily at emilytaylor.eu
> <mailto:emily at emilytaylor.eu>>
> Date: Wed, November 30, 2011 10:15 am
> To: "James M. Bladel" <jbladel at godaddy.com
> <mailto:jbladel at godaddy.com>>
> Cc: Kathy Kleiman <kathy at kathykleiman.com
> <mailto:kathy at kathykleiman.com>>, rt4-whois at icann.org
> <mailto:rt4-whois at icann.org>
>
> Hi James
>
> Thanks for raising these points. Can you suggest some language
> which you think would work? Also, Kathy raised a good point about
> whether this is limited to thin registries (.com, .net) or all? I
> don't think we've ever discussed this.
>
> Kind regards
>
> Emily
>
> On 30 November 2011 16:06, James M. Bladel <jbladel at godaddy.com
> <mailto:jbladel at godaddy.com>> wrote:
>
> 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
> <mailto:kathy at kathykleiman.com>>
> Date: Wed, November 30, 2011 9:56 am
> To: rt4-whois at icann.org <mailto: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
> <http://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
> <http://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 <mailto:Rt4-whois at icann.org>
> > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/rt4-whois
>
>
> --
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Rt4-whois mailing list
> Rt4-whois at icann.org <mailto:Rt4-whois at icann.org>
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/rt4-whois
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Rt4-whois mailing list
> Rt4-whois at icann.org <mailto:Rt4-whois at icann.org>
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/rt4-whois
>
>
>
>
> --
>
>
>
>
> __
>
> 76 Temple Road, Oxford OX4 2EZ UK
> t: +44 (0)1865 582 811 • m: +44 (0)7540 049 322
> emily at emilytaylor.eu <mailto:emily at emilytaylor.eu>
>
> *www.etlaw.co.uk <http://www.etlaw.co.uk>*
>
> Emily Taylor Consultancy Limited is a company registered in
> England and Wales No. 730471. VAT No. 114487713.
>
--
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/rt4-whois/attachments/20111130/7106599d/attachment.html
More information about the Rt4-whois
mailing list