I've read this survey, and it seems self-fulfilling and self-serving. Any
changes to the whois system will take a LONG time, since currently the
.com/net/org namespace uses a distributed whois. If they were to have it
searchable (etc), there would need to be a change to the registry model
(from a thin RRP technology to a thicker one, say EPP or XRP or some other
beast).
Until then, we put the required information (which is already there), and
there is no mandate to prevent us from putting more :)
Charles Daminato
TUCOWS Product Manager
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Tue, 26 Jun 2001, Mark wrote:
> In case people are not aware, it appears that ICANN are considering
> vamping whois information, based on a survey that they have up on their
> site. From the questions that they are asking, it sounds like they are
> thinking of standardising the format for whois information. Also, as per
> current ICANN policy, there is no mention of including reseller
> information in the possible expanded output, though there are 'additional
> comments' areas where this could be requested.
>
> The survey is at http://www.icann.org/dnso/whois-survey-en-10jun01.htm if
> anyone is interested in checking it out.
>
> One of the worrying trends that seem common in the survey is the
> possibility of expanding the searchability of whois information. While
> this would be good from some aspects (ie, trying to find all of the
> domains using a given nameserver for updating), if this is done, it would
> not be good from a privacy point-of-view. This would also likely allow
> for relatively simple DOS attacks of whois servers; just throw a bunch of
> large queries at the registrars that you don't like (but then there aren't
> any, are there? :), and watch their databases start to thrash, and a
> signifigant portion of their network bandwidth being used up...
>
> Take care,
> Mark.
>
>
> On Mon, 25 Jun 2001, David Harris wrote:
>
> >
> > Glad to hear that this is in the works.
> >
> > > 3) Ability for end user to opt-out (via manage) from having your
> > > information in their whois (in case you do something nefarious, like put
> > > advertising information there)
> >
> > I think this provision is unnecessary. I don't think the customer wants to
> > worry about that level of detail and it would lead to confusion. And anyway,
> > a rouge reseller would just comment this ability out of the scripts.
> >
> > I'd suggest that OpenSRS create some clear guidelines about what kind of
> > information is acceptable for whois branding and then enforce that
> > themselves. Take complaints at [EMAIL PROTECTED] and deal with it like
> > any other compliance issue.
> >
> > David
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
