Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #1596
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST         Thursday, February 13 2003         Volume 01 : Number 1596

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Thu, 13 Feb 2003 14:32:54 +0100
From: Stephane Bortzmeyer <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Jeff Williams FAQ (was RE: [ga] BULK whois)

On Thu, Feb 13, 2003 at 08:26:44AM -0500,
 Joe Baptista <[email-masked]> wrote 
 a message of 35 lines which said:

> But this sort of claim is what I would not expect from the french
> nic.  

I though that most members of this mailing list were sufficiently
aware of the Internet usages and that I didn't have to add one of
these ridiculous disclaimers "I speak only for myself, not for my
company. Delete this message. It is proprietary. Etc."  but apparently
it is not the case.

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 13 Feb 2003 09:21:43 -0500 (EST)
From: Joe Baptista <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Jeff Williams FAQ (was RE: [ga] BULK whois)

On Thu, 13 Feb 2003, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote:

> On Thu, Feb 13, 2003 at 08:26:44AM -0500,
>  Joe Baptista <[email-masked]> wrote
>  a message of 35 lines which said:
>
> > But this sort of claim is what I would not expect from the french
> > nic.
>
> I though that most members of this mailing list were sufficiently
> aware of the Internet usages and that I didn't have to add one of
> these ridiculous disclaimers "I speak only for myself, not for my
> company. Delete this message. It is proprietary. Etc."  but apparently
> it is not the case.

Well i've opened up a libel and slander file concerning this.  I doubt
we'll act on it but for the record we will appropriately archive your
claims and disclaimer.

Also I have forwarded your complaint to my editor at theregister.  So feel
free to libel and slander away - he's waiting for ya.

kisses
joe baptista

Joe Baptista - only at www.baptista.god

 .scifi domain registration only at http://www.register.scifi

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 13 Feb 2003 09:47:11 EST
From: [email-masked]
Subject: [ga] WHOIS data on .org domains

I just looked up the details on one of my domains, and instead of the 
"accurate" WHOIS details that I had previously provided, PIR is returning the 
following data... The same type of erroneous data is being provided for 
ICANN.org as well.  My WHOIS query was initiated via the networksolutions.com 
website.  What's going on?  

Domain ID:D88115474-LROR
Domain Name:DNSPOLICY.ORG
Created On:04-Jul-2002 04:11:45 UTC
Last Updated On:04-Jul-2002 04:11:45 UTC
Expiration Date:04-Jul-2003 04:17:15 UTC
Sponsoring Registrar:R71-LROR
Status:OK
Registrant ID:71-C
Registrant Name:CONTACT NOT AUTHORITATIVE
Registrant Street1:Whois Server:whois.register.com
Registrant Street2:Referral URL:www.register.com
Registrant City:N/A
Registrant Postal Code:N/A
Registrant Country:CA
Registrant Email:[email-masked]
Admin ID:71-C
Admin Name:CONTACT NOT AUTHORITATIVE
Admin Street1:Whois Server:whois.register.com
Admin Street2:Referral URL:www.register.com
Admin City:N/A
Admin Postal Code:N/A
Admin Country:CA
Admin Email:[email-masked]
Billing ID:71-C
Billing Name:CONTACT NOT AUTHORITATIVE
Billing Street1:Whois Server:whois.register.com
Billing Street2:Referral URL:www.register.com
Billing City:N/A
Billing Postal Code:N/A
Billing Country:CA
Billing Email:[email-masked]
Tech ID:71-C
Tech Name:CONTACT NOT AUTHORITATIVE
Tech Street1:Whois Server:whois.register.com
Tech Street2:Referral URL:www.register.com
Tech City:N/A
Tech Postal Code:N/A
Tech Country:CA
Tech Email:[email-masked]
Name Server:DNS3.REGISTER.COM
Name Server:DNS4.REGISTER.COM
- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 13 Feb 2003 15:49:29 +0100
From: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [ga] Re: {Registry#213-999} remove bulk access

CORRECTION

- ----- Original Message -----
From: <[email-masked]>
To: "Support" <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>
Cc: <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>
Sent: Thursday, February 13, 2003 11:53 AM
Subject: [ga] Re: {Registry#213-999} remove bulk access

> Thanks for further clarification.
> But it was my Registrar who told me AFTER CONTACTING NEULEVEL VIA PHONE
that
> opting-out from bulk whois IS NOT POSSIBLE.
>
> E-mail from my registrar:
>
> "Dear Mr. Steinle,
>
> Unfortunatelly we were not able to assert your interests regarding in this
> matter.
> We contacted Newlevel via phone and they told us, that this change cannot
be
> done.
>
> The previous mail was an failure of the NEWLEVEL Supporter"
>
> Btw. was it really necessary to make my domain name public?
>
> Simon
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Support" <[email-masked]>
> To: <[email-masked]>
> Cc: <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>
> Sent: Thursday, February 13, 2003 10:47 AM
> Subject: RE: {Registry#213-999} remove bulk access
>
>
> Dear Simon,
>
> We refer to your response to your customer below, in which you claim that
> the .BIZ registry had declined your request, on behalf of your customer,
to
> have their information removed from bulk WHOIS. Your response was
inaccurate
> because NeuStar Registry Services, which runs the .BIZ  and .US
registries,
> does not keep bulk WHOIS.
>
> Please note the following facts for future purposes:
>
> 1. the .BIZ and .US registries only operate and maintain the public whois;
> we do not have a bulk WHOIS.
> 2. registrars maintain their own individual bulk WHOIS records for sell to
> interested parties. By opting out of that bulk WHOIS, a registrant removes
> its name from the bulk WHOIS that registrars sell to purchasers.
> 3. as of today (February 13, 2003) a registrant cannot opt out of the
public
> whois for either .US or .BIZ.  These policies are set by the (US)
Department
> of Commerce and ICANN, respectively.
> 4. Registrars are responsible for providing bulk whois access, as outlined
> in their contracts. They also may have provisions for opting out.
> 5. a registrant who does not want their street address to appear in the
> public WHOIS can replace their street address with a working P.O. Box
> mailing address; the email address is not optional.
>
> We hope these points help put things in perspective.
>
> Best Regards,
>
> NeuLevel/NeuStar Registrar Support
>
>
>  >-----Original Message-----
>  >From: [email-masked][[email-masked]]
>  >Date: Tuesday, February 04, 2003  03:03 PM
>  >To: [email-masked][[email-masked]]
>  >Subject: Fw: remove bulk access
>  >
>  >
>  >Please remove all domains registered in my name from bulk WHOIS
>  >database/file.
>  >
>  >also see message below.
>  >
>  >Simon Steinle
>  >
>  >----- Original Message -----
>  >From: Supporter <mailto:[email-masked]>
>  >To: [email-masked] <mailto:[email-masked]>
>  >Sent: Tuesday, February 04, 2003 4:43 PM
>  >Subject: Re: remove bulk access
>  >
>  >Dear Sir,
>  >
>  >Regarding .biz domains, the provider of whois-services is NeuLevel Inc.
>  >Please be so kind as to contact them directly.
>  >
>  >Best regards,
>  >
>  >Your Team @ domaindiscount24.com
>  >
>  >Key-Systems GmbH
>  >Saarpfalz-Park, Building 7
>  >66450 Bexbach
>  >Tel.: +49 (0) 6826 - 52 41 70
>  >Fax.: +49 (0) 6826 - 52 41 71
>  >Email: [email-masked]
>  ><mailto:[email-masked]>
>  >www.key-systems.net <http://www.key-systems.net>  /
>  >www.domaindiscount24.com
>  ><http://www.domaindiscount24.com>   / www.cd <http://www.cd>
>  >
>  >----- Original Message -----
>  >From: [email-masked] <mailto:[email-masked]>
>  >To: [email-masked] <mailto:[email-masked]>
>  >Sent: Monday, February 03, 2003 12:00 AM
>  >Subject: remove bulk access
>  >
>  >
>  >
>  >Please remove all domains registered in my name from bulk WHOIS
>  >database/file.
>  >I will verify if this opt-out request was executed successfully by you
>  >via
>  >Bulk Whois databases, e.g.'Domain Registrant Search on SAEGIS'.
>  >
>  >The domains in question are listed below.
>  >
>  >
>  >PUSSY.BIZ
>  >
>  >Simon Steinle
>  >
>
>
>
>
> --
> This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
>

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 13 Feb 2003 10:27:42 -0500 (EST)
From: Joe Baptista <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] WHOIS data on .org domains

This has been going on for weeks.  It's part of the ICANN stability
package of goodies they managed to sell ya all.

The problem seems to be with PIR.  To get your registry details just
lookup the whois server in the ourput - you'll see it next to the
Registrants Street1 address - of course - where else would one be expected
to find it.

use that or the refferal url to verify your domain information.  here it
is incidentally provided by whois.register.com

   Organization:
      registrants constituency
      Danny Younger
      2311 60th Street
      Brooklyn, NY 11204
      US
      Phone: 718-376-5505
      Email: [email-masked]

   Registrar Name....: Register.com
   Registrar Whois...: whois.register.com
   Registrar Homepage: http://www.register.com

   Domain Name: DNSPOLICY.ORG

      Created on..............: Thu, Jul 04, 2002
      Expires on..............: Fri, Jul 04, 2003
      Record last updated on..: Mon, Nov 11, 2002

   Administrative Contact:
      registrants constituency
      Danny Younger
      2311 60th Street
      Brooklyn, NY 11204
      US
      Phone: 718-376-5505
      Email: [email-masked]

   Technical Contact, Zone Contact:
      Register.Com
      Domain Registrar
      575 8th Avenue - 11th Floor
      New York, NY 10018
      US
      Phone: 902-749-2701
      Fax..: 902-749-5429
      Email: [email-masked]

   Domain servers in listed order:

   DNS3.REGISTER.COM                                 216.21.234.72
   DNS4.REGISTER.COM                                 216.21.226.72

so you can see danny you still exist.

regards
joe baptista

On Thu, 13 Feb 2003 [email-masked] wrote:

> I just looked up the details on one of my domains, and instead of the
> "accurate" WHOIS details that I had previously provided, PIR is returning the
> following data... The same type of erroneous data is being provided for
> ICANN.org as well.  My WHOIS query was initiated via the networksolutions.com
> website.  What's going on?
>
> Domain ID:D88115474-LROR
> Domain Name:DNSPOLICY.ORG
> Created On:04-Jul-2002 04:11:45 UTC
> Last Updated On:04-Jul-2002 04:11:45 UTC
> Expiration Date:04-Jul-2003 04:17:15 UTC
> Sponsoring Registrar:R71-LROR
> Status:OK
> Registrant ID:71-C
> Registrant Name:CONTACT NOT AUTHORITATIVE
> Registrant Street1:Whois Server:whois.register.com
> Registrant Street2:Referral URL:www.register.com
> Registrant City:N/A
> Registrant Postal Code:N/A
> Registrant Country:CA
> Registrant Email:[email-masked]
> Admin ID:71-C
> Admin Name:CONTACT NOT AUTHORITATIVE
> Admin Street1:Whois Server:whois.register.com
> Admin Street2:Referral URL:www.register.com
> Admin City:N/A
> Admin Postal Code:N/A
> Admin Country:CA
> Admin Email:[email-masked]
> Billing ID:71-C
> Billing Name:CONTACT NOT AUTHORITATIVE
> Billing Street1:Whois Server:whois.register.com
> Billing Street2:Referral URL:www.register.com
> Billing City:N/A
> Billing Postal Code:N/A
> Billing Country:CA
> Billing Email:[email-masked]
> Tech ID:71-C
> Tech Name:CONTACT NOT AUTHORITATIVE
> Tech Street1:Whois Server:whois.register.com
> Tech Street2:Referral URL:www.register.com
> Tech City:N/A
> Tech Postal Code:N/A
> Tech Country:CA
> Tech Email:[email-masked]
> Name Server:DNS3.REGISTER.COM
> Name Server:DNS4.REGISTER.COM
> --
> This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
>

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 13 Feb 2003 10:31:12 -0500
From: "Michael D. Palage" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] WHOIS data on .org domains

Danny,

See my post to the GA on 2/8 where I answered a similar question by Joe.

Basically, as part of the  .org migration, PIR is still running a thin
registry (limited Whois data). FOr detailed and authoritative whois at the
current time you must contact your registrar of record. After PIR
transitions all of the registrars to EPP 7.0 the anomalous Whois output your
mentioned will be resolved.

Mike

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]On Behalf Of
> [email-masked]
> Sent: Thursday, February 13, 2003 9:47 AM
> To: [email-masked]
> Subject: [ga] WHOIS data on .org domains
>
>
> I just looked up the details on one of my domains, and instead of the
> "accurate" WHOIS details that I had previously provided, PIR is
> returning the
> following data... The same type of erroneous data is being provided for
> ICANN.org as well.  My WHOIS query was initiated via the
> networksolutions.com
> website.  What's going on?
>
> Domain ID:D88115474-LROR
> Domain Name:DNSPOLICY.ORG
> Created On:04-Jul-2002 04:11:45 UTC
> Last Updated On:04-Jul-2002 04:11:45 UTC
> Expiration Date:04-Jul-2003 04:17:15 UTC
> Sponsoring Registrar:R71-LROR
> Status:OK
> Registrant ID:71-C
> Registrant Name:CONTACT NOT AUTHORITATIVE
> Registrant Street1:Whois Server:whois.register.com
> Registrant Street2:Referral URL:www.register.com
> Registrant City:N/A
> Registrant Postal Code:N/A
> Registrant Country:CA
> Registrant Email:[email-masked]
> Admin ID:71-C
> Admin Name:CONTACT NOT AUTHORITATIVE
> Admin Street1:Whois Server:whois.register.com
> Admin Street2:Referral URL:www.register.com
> Admin City:N/A
> Admin Postal Code:N/A
> Admin Country:CA
> Admin Email:[email-masked]
> Billing ID:71-C
> Billing Name:CONTACT NOT AUTHORITATIVE
> Billing Street1:Whois Server:whois.register.com
> Billing Street2:Referral URL:www.register.com
> Billing City:N/A
> Billing Postal Code:N/A
> Billing Country:CA
> Billing Email:[email-masked]
> Tech ID:71-C
> Tech Name:CONTACT NOT AUTHORITATIVE
> Tech Street1:Whois Server:whois.register.com
> Tech Street2:Referral URL:www.register.com
> Tech City:N/A
> Tech Postal Code:N/A
> Tech Country:CA
> Tech Email:[email-masked]
> Name Server:DNS3.REGISTER.COM
> Name Server:DNS4.REGISTER.COM
> --
> This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
>

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 13 Feb 2003 10:39:40 EST
From: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [ga] WHOIS data on .org domains

Michael,

Even the "thin" data is incorrect.  I thought that the migration was supposed 
to be "seamless".  
- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 13 Feb 2003 09:49:45 -0500
From: "John Berryhill Ph.D. J.D." <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] BULK whois

> However, the registrar in his ICANN accreditation agreement is required to
> provide "bulk access" to their Whois data (minus those registrants that opt
> out) to any party that request it. In return the registrar is able to
charge
> up to $10,000 annually.

And, as with any registrar obligation, the relevant contract is between ICANN
and the registrar, and not between the registrar and the registrant.  Hence,
the registrar is, as usual, free to ignore any provision of the RAA that
benefits registrants, and the registrant has no way of requiring the
registrar to operate in accordance with the RAA.  ICANN, of course, has no
will or budget to enforce the RAA, even if they were motivated to do so.
ICANN continues to promulgate these stupid all-or-nothing contracts where the
enforcement mechanism for breach of any provision is total de-accreditation.
ICANN is not going to revoke a registrar's accreditation merely because the
registrar does not abide by the RAA.

So we have the regular spectacle of contributors such as Mr. Crispin, who
make the point that ICANN is not a consumer protection agency, but entirely
miss the point that the relevant contracts bearing on registrar procedures
are contracts with ICANN.  Mr. Crispin's point boils down to "if registrars
breach their contract with ICANN, it is not ICANN's job to care.  *You* can't
require ICANN to care if the contracts are not followed".  Ha, ha, the joke
is on you for believing these contracts mean anything.

Whois data is a prime example.  As everyone knows, all of the relevant
contracts and access terms to whois data prevent its resale by third parties,
right?  Yeah, sure... as if anyone is going to care whether whois data,
including archived historic whois data is being sold right here:

http://openaccess.dialog.com/ip/
"Domain Names. Comprehensive information on domain names, containing both
current registration (WhoIs) records and historic ownership (WhoWas) records
for Internet domain names. "

Is your registration data being sold there?  You bet it is.  Does all of this
eyewash about restrictions required to be placed on whois data provide you,
the registrant, with any way to get your personal data out of this commercial
database?  Dream on.  What are you going to do, persuade some registrar to
enforce the whois access agreement?  Why should they?  Because they want to
spend money for you?  Yeah, right.

99% of what goes into these stupid contracts and policies is just pure
eyewash.  That anyone even cares to the point of obsessing over this crap is
more funny than anything else.  These folks are going to do whatever they
want, and domain name registration contracts are so malleable, shot full of
holes, and really devoid of any obligations on the registrar's end that
calling them "contracts" at all makes me chuckle.

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 13 Feb 2003 07:13:27 -0800
From: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [ga] WHOIS data on .org domains

On Thu, Feb 13, 2003 at 09:47:11AM -0500, [email-masked] wrote:
> I just looked up the details on one of my domains, and instead of the 
> "accurate" WHOIS details that I had previously provided, PIR is returning the 
> following data... The same type of erroneous data is being provided for 
> ICANN.org as well.  My WHOIS query was initiated via the networksolutions.com 
> website.  What's going on?  

.org is now run by PIR; they run a "thick" registry as opposed to the 
"thin" registry of NSI; there is a transition period as information 
that was previously only at the registrar is moved to the registry.  
The information below is registry whois data that is not yet 
authoritative.  

Please note the field

    "Registrant Street1:Whois Server:whois.register.com"

That is a pointer to the registrar whois, which at this point contains 
the authoritative whois information for your domain.

> Domain ID:D88115474-LROR
> Domain Name:DNSPOLICY.ORG
> Created On:04-Jul-2002 04:11:45 UTC
> Last Updated On:04-Jul-2002 04:11:45 UTC
> Expiration Date:04-Jul-2003 04:17:15 UTC
> Sponsoring Registrar:R71-LROR
> Status:OK
> Registrant ID:71-C
> Registrant Name:CONTACT NOT AUTHORITATIVE
> Registrant Street1:Whois Server:whois.register.com
> Registrant Street2:Referral URL:www.register.com
> Registrant City:N/A
> Registrant Postal Code:N/A
> Registrant Country:CA
> Registrant Email:[email-masked]
> Admin ID:71-C
> Admin Name:CONTACT NOT AUTHORITATIVE
> Admin Street1:Whois Server:whois.register.com
> Admin Street2:Referral URL:www.register.com
> Admin City:N/A
> Admin Postal Code:N/A
> Admin Country:CA
> Admin Email:[email-masked]
> Billing ID:71-C
> Billing Name:CONTACT NOT AUTHORITATIVE
> Billing Street1:Whois Server:whois.register.com
> Billing Street2:Referral URL:www.register.com
> Billing City:N/A
> Billing Postal Code:N/A
> Billing Country:CA
> Billing Email:[email-masked]
> Tech ID:71-C
> Tech Name:CONTACT NOT AUTHORITATIVE
> Tech Street1:Whois Server:whois.register.com
> Tech Street2:Referral URL:www.register.com
> Tech City:N/A
> Tech Postal Code:N/A
> Tech Country:CA
> Tech Email:[email-masked]
> Name Server:DNS3.REGISTER.COM
> Name Server:DNS4.REGISTER.COM
> --
> This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 13 Feb 2003 11:23:03 -0500
From: "Michael D. Palage" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] WHOIS data on .org domains

I think I have to continue to disagree with you on this one Danny.

Thin registry data has historically been the following fields:

Domain Name;
Registrar;
Whois Server;
Referral URL;
Primary Name Server;
Secondary Name Server;
Status
Creation Date
Last Update

See for example the printout from VeriSign Registry for DNSPolicy.com (I
actually like the .org extension but both second level domain names are
great domain names, let me know if you ever decide to give it up)

   Domain Name: DNSPOLICY.COM
   Registrar: MELBOURNE IT, LTD. D/B/A INTERNET NAMES WORLDWIDE
   Whois Server: whois.melbourneit.com
   Referral URL: http://www.melbourneit.com
   Name Server: NS1.ULTSEARCH.COM
   Name Server: NS2.ULTSEARCH.COM
   Status: ACTIVE
   Updated Date: 15-may-2002
   Creation Date: 15-may-2002
   Expiration Date: 15-may-2003 (NEWLY ADDED)

Lets go through these data points one at a time:

Domain name:

There seems to be a domain name match between your original printout and
Register.com's thick whois output.

Registrar of record:

Your original Whois printout stated - Sponsoring Registrar:R71-LROR
This corresponds to Register.com's ID (see
http://www.pir.org/whois/registrar_list)
So this seems to be accurate.

Whois Server:

Your original Whois printout stated - whois.register.com
This also corresponds with Register.com thick whois output
So this seems to be accurate

Referral URL:

Your original Whois printout stated - www.register.com
This also corresponds with Register.com's thick Whois output
So this seems to be accurate

Creation Date:

Your original Whois printout stated - Created On:04-Jul-2002 04:11:45 UTC
According to Register.com's thick Whois data - July 4, 2002
So this seems to be accurate

Primary/Secondary DNS:

Your original Whois printout stated - DNS3.REGISTER.COM and
DNS4.REGISTER.COM
According to Register.com's thick Whois data  your primary and secondary DNS
is in fact DNS3.REGISTER.COM and DNS4.REGISTER.COM
So this seems to be accurate

If I missed something please let me know. I agree that the Whois output from
the thick registry is very confusing to a normal user. Hopefully with the
transition to a thick registry this problem will be resolved quickly.

Best regards,

Mike

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Thursday, February 13, 2003 10:40 AM
> To: [email-masked]; [email-masked]
> Subject: Re: [ga] WHOIS data on .org domains
>
>
> Michael,
>
> Even the "thin" data is incorrect.  I thought that the migration
> was supposed
> to be "seamless".
>

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 13 Feb 2003 11:29:40 -0500
From: "Michael D. Palage" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] BULK whois

John

As usual you did hit the nail on the head regarding the privity of contract
between ICANN and Registrars and the inability of third parties to seek a
cause of action since they are not an intended beneficiary. The district
court in the Register.com v. Verio litigation made this finding. I believe
the 2nd Circuit should be ruling on this appeal shortly if it has not done
so already.

With regard to the remainder of your post, I share some of your concerns but
will refrain from comment. However, a Whois paper that I am currently
working on will address most of these points.

Mike

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]On Behalf Of John
> Berryhill Ph.D. J.D.
> Sent: Thursday, February 13, 2003 9:50 AM
> To: [GA]
> Subject: Re: [ga] BULK whois
>
>
>
> > However, the registrar in his ICANN accreditation agreement is
> required to
> > provide "bulk access" to their Whois data (minus those
> registrants that opt
> > out) to any party that request it. In return the registrar is able to
> charge
> > up to $10,000 annually.
>
>
> And, as with any registrar obligation, the relevant contract is
> between ICANN
> and the registrar, and not between the registrar and the
> registrant.  Hence,
> the registrar is, as usual, free to ignore any provision of the RAA that
> benefits registrants, and the registrant has no way of requiring the
> registrar to operate in accordance with the RAA.  ICANN, of course, has no
> will or budget to enforce the RAA, even if they were motivated to do so.
> ICANN continues to promulgate these stupid all-or-nothing
> contracts where the
> enforcement mechanism for breach of any provision is total
> de-accreditation.
> ICANN is not going to revoke a registrar's accreditation merely
> because the
> registrar does not abide by the RAA.
>
> So we have the regular spectacle of contributors such as Mr. Crispin, who
> make the point that ICANN is not a consumer protection agency,
> but entirely
> miss the point that the relevant contracts bearing on registrar procedures
> are contracts with ICANN.  Mr. Crispin's point boils down to "if
> registrars
> breach their contract with ICANN, it is not ICANN's job to care.
> *You* can't
> require ICANN to care if the contracts are not followed".  Ha,
> ha, the joke
> is on you for believing these contracts mean anything.
>
> Whois data is a prime example.  As everyone knows, all of the relevant
> contracts and access terms to whois data prevent its resale by
> third parties,
> right?  Yeah, sure... as if anyone is going to care whether whois data,
> including archived historic whois data is being sold right here:
>
> http://openaccess.dialog.com/ip/
> "Domain Names. Comprehensive information on domain names, containing both
> current registration (WhoIs) records and historic ownership
> (WhoWas) records
> for Internet domain names. "
>
> Is your registration data being sold there?  You bet it is.  Does
> all of this
> eyewash about restrictions required to be placed on whois data
> provide you,
> the registrant, with any way to get your personal data out of
> this commercial
> database?  Dream on.  What are you going to do, persuade some registrar to
> enforce the whois access agreement?  Why should they?  Because
> they want to
> spend money for you?  Yeah, right.
>
> 99% of what goes into these stupid contracts and policies is just pure
> eyewash.  That anyone even cares to the point of obsessing over
> this crap is
> more funny than anything else.  These folks are going to do whatever they
> want, and domain name registration contracts are so malleable,
> shot full of
> holes, and really devoid of any obligations on the registrar's end that
> calling them "contracts" at all makes me chuckle.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
>

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 13 Feb 2003 11:56:07 EST
From: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [ga] WHOIS data on .org domains

Michael,

Thanks for the clarification.  

Re:  << I agree that the Whois output from the thick registry is very 
confusing to a normal user. >>

I guess that as a typical confused user I continue to fail to understand the 
justification for all the extra fields that appear in the thick WHOIS.  Why 
should anyone, other than my own registrar, have to know my billing contact 
information?  Why does my expectation of privacy continue to be eroded in 
this ICANN process?

As far as I recall, the RAA says nothing about making billing data available 
for publication.  When did the DNSO approve a change in this policy?
- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 13 Feb 2003 12:09:51 -0500 (EST)
From: Joe Baptista <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] WHOIS data on .org domains

incidnetally dnspolcy.com/org i think were once registered to william x.
walsh.  oh no - i've said the evil name.

Joe Baptista - only at www.baptista.god

          Datarunner
             http://www.datarunner.low/
                Free software
                   Graphics
                      Domains
                         Web Development

On Thu, 13 Feb 2003, Michael D. Palage wrote:

> I think I have to continue to disagree with you on this one Danny.
>
> Thin registry data has historically been the following fields:
>
> Domain Name;
> Registrar;
> Whois Server;
> Referral URL;
> Primary Name Server;
> Secondary Name Server;
> Status
> Creation Date
> Last Update
>
>
> See for example the printout from VeriSign Registry for DNSPolicy.com (I
> actually like the .org extension but both second level domain names are
> great domain names, let me know if you ever decide to give it up)
>
>    Domain Name: DNSPOLICY.COM
>    Registrar: MELBOURNE IT, LTD. D/B/A INTERNET NAMES WORLDWIDE
>    Whois Server: whois.melbourneit.com
>    Referral URL: http://www.melbourneit.com
>    Name Server: NS1.ULTSEARCH.COM
>    Name Server: NS2.ULTSEARCH.COM
>    Status: ACTIVE
>    Updated Date: 15-may-2002
>    Creation Date: 15-may-2002
>    Expiration Date: 15-may-2003 (NEWLY ADDED)
>
>
>
> Lets go through these data points one at a time:
>
> Domain name:
>
> There seems to be a domain name match between your original printout and
> Register.com's thick whois output.
>
>
> Registrar of record:
>
> Your original Whois printout stated - Sponsoring Registrar:R71-LROR
> This corresponds to Register.com's ID (see
> http://www.pir.org/whois/registrar_list)
> So this seems to be accurate.
>
> Whois Server:
>
> Your original Whois printout stated - whois.register.com
> This also corresponds with Register.com thick whois output
> So this seems to be accurate
>
>
> Referral URL:
>
> Your original Whois printout stated - www.register.com
> This also corresponds with Register.com's thick Whois output
> So this seems to be accurate
>
>
> Creation Date:
>
> Your original Whois printout stated - Created On:04-Jul-2002 04:11:45 UTC
> According to Register.com's thick Whois data - July 4, 2002
> So this seems to be accurate
>
>
> Primary/Secondary DNS:
>
> Your original Whois printout stated - DNS3.REGISTER.COM and
> DNS4.REGISTER.COM
> According to Register.com's thick Whois data  your primary and secondary DNS
> is in fact DNS3.REGISTER.COM and DNS4.REGISTER.COM
> So this seems to be accurate
>
>
> If I missed something please let me know. I agree that the Whois output from
> the thick registry is very confusing to a normal user. Hopefully with the
> transition to a thick registry this problem will be resolved quickly.
>
> Best regards,
>
> Mike
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]
> > Sent: Thursday, February 13, 2003 10:40 AM
> > To: [email-masked]; [email-masked]
> > Subject: Re: [ga] WHOIS data on .org domains
> >
> >
> > Michael,
> >
> > Even the "thin" data is incorrect.  I thought that the migration
> > was supposed
> > to be "seamless".
> >
>
> --
> This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
>

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

End of GA-DIGEST V1 #1596
*************************