RE: [nc-whois] Voiding bulk access rights?

["Abel Wisman" <abel@able-towers.com>]

I think I agree with some of it, namely it is time to get rid of the
bulk access clause, only I wold not mind using it as barter for some
other issues.

As also came up, but was waved pretty quick, there is a clause in the
registrar agreeement that forces them to keep up a whois or sort-like
system, this requires a number of set lines as a minimum.

The clause I'm referring to:
<clip>
1. At its expense, Registrar shall provide public access on a real-time
basis (such as through a Whois service) to those data elements, that are
designated from time to time according to an ICANN-adopted policy,
concerning all active SLD registrations sponsored by Registrar in the
registry for the .com, .net, and .org TLDs. Until ICANN otherwise
designates, this data shall consist of: 

a. The name of the SLD being registered; 

b. The IP addresses of the primary nameserver and any secondary
nameservers for the SLD; 

c. The corresponding names of those nameservers; 

d. The identity of Registrar; 

e. The original creation date of the registration; 

f. The expiration date of the registration; 

g. The name and postal address of the SLD holder; 

h. The name, postal address, e-mail address, voice telephone number, and
where available fax number of the technical contact for the SLD; 

i. The name, postal address, e-mail address, voice telephone number, and
where available fax number of the administrative contact for the SLD; 

j. The name, postal address, e-mail address, voice telephone number, and
where available fax number of the zone contact for the SLD; and 

k. Any remark concerning the registered SLD name that should appear in
the Whois data.

</clip>

Now let's take this somewhat apart and look at what is needed and what
it NOT needed:

A through F form no problem, this much is clear from the questionnaire
and even not interfering with most if not all privacy laws.

G. is interesting, in contradiction with what is currently believed
there is no need to display more then a "postal" address and the name of
the registrant, this can be anything, including a post box.
No phonenumber or email address is required.

H & I require this however for the tech and admin contact.

This brings me back to my prior text(s) who are these contacts ? And why
where these specific needs added, mostly seemingly based on the original
whois RFC?

The tech contact according to the original whois and the unerlying
ideas, was to be a contact person that had influence on the server the
domain was running on, someone who had technical abilities to do
something about problems.

Ewven though this as well as the admin contact have become the owne5r of
the domain in most cases, this was never meant that way and the
development of that has for a large part contributed in the wois
becoming less a databse with usefull data in case of problems and more a
great tool for marketing.

No matter what the IP community says, there is no need for the data of a
domain "owner" (lessee) to be public property, none whatsoever. This
proven by the European cc-TLD's where the IP community has other and
just as well working means to stop infringments on her rights at her
disposal.

The admin contact originally was the registrar, or perhaps now the
reseller, someone who would have the "owner" data at his/her disposal.

J, the zonecontact, holder of the ip-block though we hardly ever see
that in any whois anymore, it is quite handy, though the respective
RIPE, ARIN and APNIC databases hold that info as well.

K, though according to the RFC "politely no more then 4 lines" ios used
well and filled to the brim, but free.



Looking at all that, I begin to wonder whether we are trying to fix
something that aint broke, just used badly, maybe we should just hold
those who publish the data they are not obliged to publish responsible,
maybe we should suggest to the NC that a stricter whois policy in
accordance with the original and updated RFC would most likley solve 98%
or more of the current problems.

With regards

Abel Wisman



-----Original Message-----
From: owner-nc-whois@dnso.org [mailto:owner-nc-whois@dnso.org] On Behalf
Of Thomas Roessler
Sent: 24 September 2002 19:02
To: nc-whois@dnso.org; Rick Wesson; Ross Wm. Rader
Subject: [nc-whois] Voiding bulk access rights?


One issue which came up during today's conference call with the  
registrars was the concern that bulk data users who break the bulk  
access agreement's provisions are still entitled to enter into a 
_new_ agreement with the same registrar.

A reasonable remedy for this may be to add a clause to the bulk  
access policy which voids any eligibility for receiving bulk access  
upon breaking the agreement, so it's no longer "10,000$ per spam".

On the other hand, there's nothing which would prevent infringers  
 from using throwaway corporations for this kind of activity.  What  
do you folks think?

-- 
Thomas Roessler                        <roessler@does-not-exist.org>