Re: [registrars] Interim Whois Solutions.ppt - for the Whois portion of our Sept.12 Agenda

["Ross Wm. Rader" <ross@xxxxxxxxxx>]

On 9/8/2003 4:52 PM Elana Broitman noted that:

> Please view this as the opening to a discussion.  We welcome your thoughts about any other interim solutions.
>
> Regards, Elana <<Interim Whois Solutions.ppt>> 
This proposal offers privacy as one of two key motivators, but it does 
not seem to offer a solution to the privacy problem. Is there something 
that I'm missing?
Also, this proposal suffers from precisely what I described earlier 
today - it is heavy on "implementation details" and bereft of 
"requirements" and "goals".
Without a better understanding of what we are trying to solve for, it is 
difficult to judge the value of the proposition.
We should perhaps first have a policy based discussion that attempts to 
uncover whether or not moving forward with the immutable Whois access 
requirements (bulk, web and port 43) are still desirable and if not, 
whether or not minimal adjustments are possible to allow for individual 
registrars to implement their own controls.
For instance, I may choose to Whois only on port 43 with a set of rate 
limiting and whitelist/blacklist rules that bubble up into port 80 
access controls. This doesn't seem possible if port 43 is eliminated in 
favor of an implementation specific policy.

--
Regards,


	-rwr






"In the modern world the intelligence of public opinion is the one 
indispensable condition for social progress."
	- Charles W. Eliot (1834 - 1926)