RE: [registrars] Whois development

["tbarrett" <tbarrett@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Dear Tim,

I would like to apologize to Godaddy, NSI, Register.com and MelbourneIT.  A
flu-filled week has clouded my analysis.

I misinterpreted the whois output from all four vendors.  While EnCirca and
several other registrars are not identified as the sponsoring registrar at
any of the first three vendors I mentioned, I now realize it is not due to
filtering.  Instead, it is due to the actual output generated by the
sponsoring registrars such as EnCirca and easily corrected.  We will change
our output.  Since I noticed this with other registrars I checked,  I
suggest that all registrars review their whois output to ensure it includes
"sponsoring registrar" in their port-43 output.

Regarding MIT, they appear to be doing a registry whois, which is why the
sponsoring registrar is clearly identified.  Although the url begins with
"nsi", it is not from the nsi registrar.  I should have noticed the thin
output as opposed to the thick output. Another misread on my part.  

The registry whois method followed by MIT, and some others, strikes me as
the best method for all registrars to standardize on.

EnCirca also prevents scripting of web-based Whois to prevent data mining.
But I remain concerned of data mining of our port-43 Whois by other
registrars, which I think is a real issue.  

Tom


-----Original Message-----
From: Tim Ruiz [mailto:tim@xxxxxxxxxxx] 
Sent: Friday, January 09, 2004 11:26 PM
To: tbarrett@xxxxxxxxxxx; registrars@xxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [registrars] Whois development


Tom,

What I saw at google was a spyglass icon and link. When I clicked it, it
appeared to query the NSI port 43. But now I don't see it after attempting
several searches. Maybe it was just a paid link, I don't know.

Go Daddy offers a cross registrar whois as a service to our customers. We do
not market it directly or tout it in any other marketing. We protect it from
scripting to minimize abuse. Other registrars who do the same thing are
welcome to be on our white list to avoid being blocked, but they must
protect their whois from being scripted and they will still be limited if
they attempt to mine our data.

We don't filter any of the data from the whois results we receive from other
registrars. We do check it for embedded scripts and strip those out. But
otherwise, we dump it out exactly as we get it. Go to our whois and search
on encirca.com. And ALL of the whois data returned from Go Daddy's port 43
includes the registrar as well.

It's unfortunate that you questioned our honesty without having all the
facts. If you have any questions about our whois, just ask.

Tim


-----Original Message-----
From: owner-registrars@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:owner-registrars@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of tbarrett
Sent: Friday, January 09, 2004 9:24 PM
To: registrars@xxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [registrars] Whois development



Wendy's blog is a bit misleading.  This is not a new Google feature.  It is
simply a sponsored link to NSI's whois search.

It does remind me however of the abuse of port-43 by registrars against
registrars.

NSI, as well as several other registrars have configured their Whois so that
if the domain being searched is sponsored by another registrar, then they
execute the whois search at the sponsoring registrar and return the results.

I can see how their marketing department would tout this as a benefit for
the end user.

However, not wanting to promote their competitors, NSI filters the data so
that the sponsoring registrar is not displayed.  It appears to the end user
that the domain is sponsored by NSI.  Very misleading and sometimes comical.
I once heard from a customer who had asked their web provider to update
their DNS for them.  The web provider kept responding that NSI was ignoring
all requests to update the domain's DNS!  Based on the NSI whois output, the
web provider assumed NSI was the sponsoring registrar and tried to get
support, to no avail.  Once we were alerted, we fixed the problem.  But
EnCirca, NSI and the registrar industry in general received a black-eye for
the experience.

This practice is only acceptable if the sponsoring registrar is clearly
identified.

In contrast, if you perform a Whois at Melbourne IT for an EnCirca domain,
they will readily admit it is with another registrar.  Interestingly, they
return Whois results via NSI.  To their credit, they do not filter out the
sponsoring registrar.

NSI is not only one filtering the sponsoring registrar.  GoDaddy and
Register.com are also guilty of this. I can't tell if they do it on their
own or piggyback NSI's. Of course, once they take this step, why not just
store the results for marketing purposes? 

I call on NSI, GoDaddy, Register.com and any other registrars
cross-searching registrar's whois to be honest in their whois output and
clearly identify the sponsoring registrar.  To do otherwise is an abuse of
registrar's whois resources and confusing to end-users.

And this is not the only abuse of whois by registrars against registrars.
There are also registrars abusing port-43 whois to avoid paying bulk license
fees in order to build searchable whois databases that they can charge
access to.  Aside from being theft, this form of "bulk whois" prevents
registrants from opting out, as called for in our ICANN agreements.

I'm tempted towards a simpler cure: just shut down our port-43 whois.  Yeah,
transfers will break.  But it seems like a fair trade-off if it will end the
abuse.

Joking aside, this needs to be addressed by the constituency before anarchy
results.

Tom Barrett
EnCirca, Inc.


-----Original Message-----
From: owner-registrars@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:owner-registrars@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Michael D. Palage
Sent: Friday, January 09, 2004 8:00 PM
To: registrars@xxxxxxxx
Subject: [registrars] Whois development


Hello All:

Check out Google's latest foray into the search environment. A Whois command
line search from the Google search window.

http://wendy.seltzer.org/blog/archives/000114.html

Regards,

Michael