RE: Fw: [gnso-acc-sgb] Report for today

["Margie Milam" <Margie.Milam@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

In my view, cost prohibitive would be something that would require a
significant r&d effort or shift in operations on the part of registrars
to accommodate, without no apparent way to recoup the costs.   

 

All registrars rely on software, either internally developed or licensed
from a third party, to perform their domain name registrations.   My
point is that in developing a WHOIS solution, we need to take this into
account.    Anything that would require a manual process, such as
reviewing affidavits or faxes or other documentation may not be
scaleable, when you are talking about millions of WHOIS records.

 

 

Margie

 

 

 

  _____  

From: Hugh Dierker [mailto:hdierker2204@xxxxxxxxx] 
Sent: Friday, May 25, 2007 12:06 PM
To: Margie Milam; ross@xxxxxxxxxx
Cc: gnso-acc-sgb@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: Fw: [gnso-acc-sgb] Report for today

 

Could you elaborate on what would be cost prohibitive. Especially what
would have to be passed on to the consumer.

 

It seems that we are speaking more of a one time shift in process,
rather than an ongoing increase in cost. Please correct me if I am
wrong.

 

Just as an aside I find it interesting, although not critical, that no
human being is listed.

 

Eric

Margie Milam <Margie.Milam@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

        That's correct. 
        
        I disagree with Ross that this is out of scope since we are
talking
        about whether registrars currently deploy some technological
limitations
        on Port 43, and whether such limitations could be useful in
developing a
        tiered access approach to WHOIS. 
        
        I believe that the registrar's current practices, including
        blacklisting/whitelisting IP addresses, rate limits per IP
addresses,
        and truncated records per IP address, may be some of the
limitations
        that could be evaluated in our work. As a registrar, I agree
with Ross
        that any changes to WHOIS access need to be implementable and
not cost
        prohibitive. 
        
        Margie 
        
        
        -----Original Message-----
        From: Ross Rader [mailto:ross@xxxxxxxxxx] 
        Sent: Friday, May 25, 2007 11:23 AM
        To: Margie Milam
        Cc: gnso-acc-sgb@xxxxxxxxx
        Subject: Re: Fw: [gnso-acc-sgb] Report for today
        
        Completeness is a service specific notion. In this case, the
whois query
        
        was conducted through the non-authoritative registry whois which
has 
        different collection and publication requirements. Authoritative

        registrar whois requirements are slightly different, leading to
the 
        payload as illustrated in the example below. There is a second
type of 
        non-authoritative whois data, also known as "referral whois
data" which 
        are those whois services provided by third party services who
are simply
        
        reproducing the data found at the authoritative whois service
offered by
        
        the registrar. Depending on the method of query, there are
policy 
        issues, probably out of scope for this working group, related to
the 
        methods of acquisition and publication of this type of data by
these 
        third parties.
        
        Tucows does not employ rate limiting in its whois services,
however we 
        do employ query limiting and blacklisting (blacklisting is a
form of 
        rate limiting I suppose, if the rate limit is always assumed to
be
        zero).
        
        So yes, the earlier whois data that was published was complete,
as is 
        the record Margie reproduced below - the difference between the
two is 
        only the source of the data, in this case Verisign registry and
Tucows 
        registrar.
        
        Margie Milam wrote:
        > Is this information from the registry WHOIS or the registrar
WHOIS
        > published through Port 43?
        > 
        > The reason for my question is that I understand that some
registrars
        > will apply rate-limits on Port 43 with respect to certain
blacklisted
        IP
        > addresses, and will only publish a truncated WHOIS record
(similar to
        > this) when they receive inquiries from an IP address that they
believe
        > is abusing Port 43. I don't know if Tucows uses this method
with
        > respect to Port 43 (perhaps Ross can clarify). 
        > 
        > This could be relevant to our analysis as we explore, per
Ross'
        > suggestion, the technical possibilities related to Port
43,that could
        be
        > utilized in a tiered access approach. 
        > 
        > I note that if I go to the Tucows website and do a WHOIS
lookup on
        > bankofamerica.com, I get the complete WHOIS record (see
below).
        > 
        > 
        > Margie
        > 
        > ___________________________________________
        > 
        > Whois info for, bankofamerica.com:
        > 
        > Registrant:
        > Bank of America
        > 1201 Main St.
        > TX1-609-12-15
        > Dallas, TX 75202
        > US
        > 
        > Domain name: BANKOFAMERICA.COM
        > 
        > Administrative Contact:
        > Administrator, Domain Domain.Administrator@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
        > 1201 Main Street, 12th Floor
        > M/S TX1-609-12-15
        > Dallas, TX 75202
        > US
        > 214-508-7868
        > Technical Contact:
        > HostMaster, The hostmaster@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
        > 2000 Clayton Road
        > M/S CA4-704-04-21
        > Concord, CA 94520-2425
        > US
        > +1.9256928812
        > 
        > 
        > Registrar of Record: TUCOWS, INC.
        > Record last updated on 16-Mar-2007.
        > Record expires on 28-Dec-2010.
        > Record created on 28-Dec-1998.
        > 
        > Domain servers in listed order:
        > NS4.BANKOFAMERICA.COM 171.159.192.15
        > NS3.BANKOFAMERICA.COM 171.161.160.15
        > NS1.BANKOFAMERICA.COM 171.159.64.15
        > 
        > 
        > Domain status: clientTransferProhibited
        > clientUpdateProhibited
        > Margie
        > 
        > -----Original Message-----
        > From: Ross Rader [mailto:ross@xxxxxxxxxx] 
        > Sent: Friday, May 25, 2007 9:39 AM
        > To: Margie Milam
        > Cc: gnso-acc-sgb@xxxxxxxxx
        > Subject: Re: Fw: [gnso-acc-sgb] Report for today
        > 
        > Margie Milam wrote:
        >> Where is the rest of the WHOIS information? If this is this
the 
        >> complete record, a lot of currently required information is
missing.
        > 
        >> The email address is missing from this, as well as the phone
number
        of
        > 
        >> the various contacts. It would be very difficult to contact
Bank of
        
        >> America or send them an email if there were issues related to
the
        > domain 
        >> name.
        > 
        > There is nothing missing from this record.
        > 
        > -ross
        > 
        > 
        
        
        

 

  

  _____  

Food fight?
<http://answers.yahoo.com/dir/index;_ylc=X3oDMTFvbGNhMGE3BF9TAzM5NjU0NTE
wOARfcwMzOTY1NDUxMDMEc2VjA21haWxfdGFnbGluZQRzbGsDbWFpbF90YWcx?link=ask&s
id=396545367>  Enjoy some healthy debate
in the Yahoo! Answers Food & Drink Q&A.
<http://answers.yahoo.com/dir/index;_ylc=X3oDMTFvbGNhMGE3BF9TAzM5NjU0NTE
wOARfcwMzOTY1NDUxMDMEc2VjA21haWxfdGFnbGluZQRzbGsDbWFpbF90YWcx?link=ask&s
id=396545367>