[Rt4-whois] Questions on Recommendation 17

[Kathy Kleiman]

Lutz wrote:
> Yes, that's the reasoning behind the proposal: The AoC urges ICANN to
> provide such an unrestricted access. Unfortunly many registries does rate
> limit the access or does not provide all the required data.
Hi Lutz,
Yes, the registrars and registries rate limit because they feel required 
to. It is part of the Whois Marketing Restriction Policy of 2004 -- one 
of the few bright spots of the type of consensus from the GNSO we have 
been looking for -- that bars registries and registrars from allowing 
data mining of the Whois databases for spam, other forms of unwanted 
advertising, profiling, etc.  (Quote from our draft report, chapter 3, 
is below.)  Rate limiting is a tried and true way of preventing data 
mining, as you know.

/So here's a followup question: Are we saying, somehow, that the 
language of the AOC trumps and takes precedence over this Consensus 
Policy?  If so, I think we really need to spell it out for the community 
and the GNSO.

/But somehow, I don't think we meant to overturn this marketing 
restriction policy.  As I have mentioned, I think we should be very 
carefully of recommended specific technical fixes -- but lay out the 
problem, and the need for a solution, and allow the Community to find it.

Chapter 3 Excerpt:
"WHOIS Marketing Restriction Policy: This policy, a combination of two 
distinct GNSO policy recommendations, creates two policy changes to the 
Registrar Accreditation Agreement:
a. Registrars must require third parties "to agree not to use the 
[Whois] data to allow, enable, or otherwise support any marketing 
activities."
b. Registrars must "agree not to sell or redistribute the [Whois] data" 
(with some exceptions). http://www.icann.org/en/registrars/wmrp.htm/"

Best,
Kathy
/

-- 



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/rt4-whois/attachments/20120208/61be32f7/attachment.html