A translation (was Re: An update from the ICANN ISPCP meeting...)

Sat Oct 25 02:34:19 UTC 2014

Barry,

On Oct 24, 2014, at 12:13 PM, Barry Shein <bzs at world.std.com> wrote:
> I believe this never-ending quest for more reliable domain
> registration data is being driven by intellectual property lawyers to
> lower the cost of serving those they see as infringers either by
> domain or web site content.

I would agree that the intellectual property folks have interests in this area, however having sat through sessions on various illegal activities facilitated by domain names (e.g., trade in endangered species, child porn, illegal pharmacies,  etc) as well as having been to anti-abuse meetings (e.g., MAAWG, APWG, RIPE abuse-wt, etc), I am fairly confident there are far more people interested in accurate registration data than merely intellectual property lawyers.

Heck, I heard even some network operators would like to have accurate registration databases and I don't think many of those folks are intellectual property lawyers.

> FWIW, my suggestion was to put the WHOIS data into the DNS (a new RR
> perhaps) under the control of whoever manages that DNS record and if
> someone needs more correct information then perhaps the registrars
> could provide it (perhaps for a fee) from the sales slips (so to
> speak.)

You're too late: I believe there is a t-shirt that has the slogan "F* that, let's just put it in the DNS"... :)

> It's just a sales record, not sure why some are trying to move heaven
> and earth to idealize the information and access to it.

I disagree. Perhaps my age is showing, but I believe the whole point of the registration database is to provide contact information to allow someone to contact the registrant for whatever reason, e.g., "hey, stop that!". 

> P.S. And of course the new WHOIS proposal involves creating classes of
> access to go along with improved correctness.

That is one part of the outcome of ICANN's ongoing effort to try to fix the multiple decade long nightmare that is Whois, yes.

> So only bona-fide
> lawyers with paid-up bar dues will be able to get at the info because,
> you know, lawyers, esq.

I'm not sure such a wild mischaracterization of the _166 page_ proposal for "A Next Generation Registration Directory Service" is actually helpful. The whole question of registration data is extremely complicated with a vast array of mutually contradictory requirements. As I understand it, the tiered access proposal was largely driven by the requirement to deal with the differing privacy requirements/laws/customs/etc. across the planet (e.g., the EU data privacy directives). As with anything that suggests non-trivial change, there is much that is controversial in the proposal, however I suspect it would be more useful if the controversy was based in actual reality instead of snark.

For anyone actually interested, the actual proposal is at

https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/final-report-06jun14-en.pdf

(and to be clear, it is a proposal -- people are currently discussing what to do with it)

Regards,
-drc

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 496 bytes
Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
URL: <http://mailman.nanog.org/pipermail/nanog/attachments/20141024/44480ecf/attachment.sig>