Thanks Vivek, Here is my question, irrespective of bulk whois or otherwise.
INPUT: Hypothetical script to query WHOIS service in a loop DEFINE: target_service = "whois.apnic.net" DEFINE: query_threshold = Y (total queries from an IP per day) DEFINE: query_rate = N (queries/second) DEFINE: blocking_behavior = ???? - What is the query_threshold (value of Y) at which rate limiting or blocking is triggered? - Is there a specific limit on the query_rate (e.g., N queries per second) that results in alerts or blocking? - How does the system handle excessive queries (e.g., temporary blocking, permanent blocking, or other actions)? Regards, Aftab A. Siddiqui On Tue, 21 Jan 2025 at 17:25, Vivek Nigam <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Anupam, all, > > > > We provide access to APNIC Whois data for bulk download to organisations > that intend to use it for Internet operational or technical research > purposes. To get access, organizations need to complete the acceptable use > agreement and state how they plan to use the data. > > > > > https://www.apnic.net/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/apnic-whois-agreement-update.pdf > > > > Typically, we get these requests from cybersecurity companies, research > bodies, large ISP/IXPs, universities, law enforcement agencies etc. Over > 400 organizations have signed this agreement and have access to this data. > > > > We have not had any abuse reports that match these organisations. We have > had one case where we received multiple complains of marketing emails from > an APNIC Member organisation who were also registered brokers. This > resulted in APNIC terminating their agreement and closing their account. > > > > Our course of action is more limited when we receive evidence of whois > data abuse from non APNIC Member organisations, which make up vast majority > of these reports. In this case we issue an official warning requesting the > offenders to stop sending marketing emails. We have had varying levels of > success following up these reports. In some cases, the offender > acknowledged it was a mistake by their marketing team and agreed to stop > this practice. In most cases, they have argued that they have got these > email addresses from third-party database vendors, or the emails were > already registered in their platform to receive marketing emails. > > > > Hope this information helps. > > > > Thanks > > Vivek > > > > *From: *Anupam Agrawal <[email protected]> > *Date: *Friday, 17 January 2025 at 8:56 PM > *To: *Mark Foster <[email protected]> > *Cc: *Philip Paeps <[email protected]>, Fernando Frediani < > [email protected]>, [email protected] < > [email protected]> > *Subject: *[sig-policy] Re: prop-162-v001: WHOIS Privacy > > That's a good point Mark. Some information on the number of complaints or > the number of access requests/ agreements would be helpful. > > > > Regards > > ________________________________________________________ > > Anupam Agrawal | India Internet Foundation - Chair | 91 905 170 3611 > > > > > > On Fri, Jan 17, 2025 at 9:20 AM Mark Foster <[email protected]> wrote: > > Thanks Philip, I think that's an important point to remain savvy to. > > I think it's important to go back to, what is the purpose for which bulk > access is provided, and whether the proposal interferes with that purpose > or not. > > Noting the contents of the above and the assertion that folks using > information derived from bulk access will be prosecuted - but no evidence > of this actually occurring despite strong indicators that whois information > is being used for unsolicited marketing (something which I can most > certainly also report) ... in the absence of seeing actual negative > consequences to these actors i'm comfortable with seeing information > removed or anonymised - and up until doing so detracts from the purpose for > which the bulk access is being provided, there's basically no impact. > (Regular whois not impacted - just bulk). > > > > I support the proposal but the rider I would like to see on it, is to > challenge APNIC to revalidate the reasons it provides bulk access, the > assurance has that the database is being used for legitimate purposes in > compliance with the AUP, and its actions in response to reports of abuse. > Beyond that - if reducing the level of detail in the bulk output has no > negative impact, why not? (Agree that network operators must be > identifiable and reachable. Changes only to the bulk scope won't prevent > this, unless the bulk view of the data is being used for that purpose. I > suppose there are legitimate services that might have bulk access > agreements for that purpose - I guess only APNIC can tell us if that's > true.) > > > > Regards > Mark. > > > > On Tue, 14 Jan 2025 at 15:02, Philip Paeps <[email protected]> wrote: > > On 2025-01-14 00:46:49 (+0800), Fernando Frediani wrote: > > Although I do understand the motivations to this proposal, I normally > > don't like much this feel that may look obvious to many to remove as > > much as contact data in order to not be bothered with marketing and > > sales content due to the concern that make things more difficult for > > legitimate need to get in touch for troubleshooting and legal demands. > > > > If you are operating an Autonomous System and have responsibilities > > over it you must be able to be easily contacted in order to deal with > > the legitimate demands you commited when you became one, and for that > > there will be some burden which if reasonable should be accepted. > > > > I understand the proposal suggests removing it from the bulk access, > > but it has not been clear how it will work and how easy it will be for > > those with legitimate need to get these contact details, if it will be > > with not human interaction or if someone will need to fill a form and > > justify, etc ? > > Note that "bulk access" in this policy proposal (as I read it -- do > correct me if I'm wrong) specifically refers to this service: > https://www.apnic.net/manage-ip/using-whois/bulk-access/. > > The overwhelming majority of network operators in the world do not have > bulk data access agreements with APNIC and would therefore not be > affected in any way by this policy proposal. > > Philip > _______________________________________________ > SIG-policy - https://mailman.apnic.net/[email protected]/ > To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected] > > _______________________________________________ > SIG-policy - https://mailman.apnic.net/[email protected]/ > To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected] > > _______________________________________________ > SIG-policy - https://mailman.apnic.net/[email protected]/ > To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected] >
_______________________________________________ SIG-policy - https://mailman.apnic.net/[email protected]/ To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
