Re: [dow2tf] Updated WHOIS Data Element Chart.
- To: Steve Metalitz <metalitz@xxxxxxxx>
- Subject: Re: [dow2tf] Updated WHOIS Data Element Chart.
- From: Thomas Roessler <roessler@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 28 Jan 2004 00:23:48 +0100
- Cc: dow2tf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx, Barbara Roseman <roseman@xxxxxxxxx>, irving@xxxxxxxxx
- In-reply-to: <ED4EC3C54C514942B84B686CDEC7FC05BA93A5@smsvr2.local.iipa.com>
- Mail-followup-to: Steve Metalitz <metalitz@xxxxxxxx>, dow2tf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx, Barbara Roseman <roseman@xxxxxxxxx>, irving@xxxxxxxxx
- References: <ED4EC3C54C514942B84B686CDEC7FC05BA93A5@smsvr2.local.iipa.com>
- Sender: owner-dow2tf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- User-agent: Mutt/126.96.36.199i
On 2004-01-27 17:28:06 -0500, Steve Metalitz wrote:
> Thomas, this does not quite match up with what we get when we
> make actual Whois queries. For example, on .org registry
> inquiries, we get technical contact organization and registrant
> e-mail, which are not on your list.
I'll leave it to David Maher to explain the intricacies of .org
WHOIS; he's in a much better position to do this than I am.
The chart should accurately reflect the obligations for .org --
there's specific language that the registry operator need not
publish information that needn't be published according to the RAA,
see section 7.3 of appendix O to the agreement. As you know, the
RAA's WHOIS provisions mention no such thing as an organization
> A .info search returns an "organization" entry for the registrant
> and for admin, tech and billing contacts; these do not appear on
> the revised chart.
We can certainly promote "organization" entries from footnotes to
table rows of their own, where applicable. A quick glance through
the contacts yields organization fields in all thick registry
appendices. With at least .aero, .biz, and .museum, the agreement is
a little contradictory on organization fields. .name has no
organization field for the registrant. .pro marks the organization
field as optional.
Since there is no such thing as an organization field for
individuals that serve as contacts, I'd presume that this field
should be considered optional for all thick TLDs, where mentioned.
Does this match the research you have done?
> There are also discrepancies between the actual return and the
> requirements of the posted registry agreement in some cases. I
> suppose this is a separate issue. Our goal here is to present
> the list of data elements actually returned.
I disagree. The primary goal should be to give a useful
representation of current obligations, so people understand what is
being reviewed, and where policy changes may be needed. When policy
is not being implemented properly, that's indeed a different issue,
and may require enforcement, not new consensus policies.
Thomas Roessler <roessler@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
At-Large Advisory Committee: http://alac.info/