[whois-sc] A bit of history - from 1 Dec 2000

["Bruce Tonkin" <Bruce.Tonkin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Hello All,

Thanks to Steve Metalitz for providing a reference to this document
http://www.icann.org/committees/whois/touton-letter-01dec00.htm, 
which is a letter from the ICANN General Counsel to a com/net/org WHOIS
committee
(a full copy is included below).

It is interesting to see that some of the questions we are asking have
been asked before, and we have still to find the answers.

The references below refer to an old verision of the registrar
accreditation agreement.
(http://www.icann.org/registrars/ra-agreement-10nov99.htm).  It
indicates the original intent of each clause in the reigstrar
accreditation agreement.

Some of the questions raised in this note from the General Counsel that
are relevant to this WHOIS Steering group include:

Question 4 (related to task force 1):
4.  Should registrars be permitted to limit the number of queries from a
particular site?  If so, what limit should apply? Subsection II.F.1 of
the Registrar Accreditation Agreement appears to require free public
access to port 43 Whois service "concerning all active SLD
registrations," indicating that limitations on the number of queries are
not contemplated.  The use of governors, however, can prevent
inappropriate heavy loading of a registrar's Whois systems.  The ICANN
staff would benefit from guidance as to the extent to which it should,
as a matter of enforcement choice, permit use of governors.

Question 5 (related to task force 1):
5.  Are there some particular sources from which registrars should not
be permitted to limit the number of queries?  Permitting registrars
ungoverned access to each other's Whois services facilitates registrars
in implementing TLD-wide domain-name-lookup service.  Should limitations
on this access be permitted, even if governors are tolerated for other
users?  Are there other sources of queries for which governors should
not be permitted?

Question 6: (related to task force 1):
6.  Should .com/.net/.org registrars be permitted to limit the number of
responses returned to a single query?  If so, what limit should apply?
Again, subsection II.F.1 of the Registrar Accreditation Agreement
appears to require free public access to port 43 Whois service
"concerning all active SLD registrations," indicating that limiting the
number of responses was not envisioned.  Use of some limits, however,
can prevent abusive use or overly burdensome use of the Whois service.

Qustion 7:
7.  Should the requirement for full (RFC 1580) Whois service, rather
than merely domain-name-lookup service, be vigorously enforced?  Most
registrars appear not to be in compliance with the requirement for true
"Whois" service.  However, prior to implementation of the TLD-wide Whois
service contemplated by subsection II.F.4, registrar-by-registrar Whois
service appears to be of limited value.  Would it be better to avoid
burdening registrars with a requirement for single-registrar Whois
service, so that they can devote their energies toward implementaiton of
a TLD-wide Whois service?

(I  note that RFC 1580 is an Information RFC that defines WHOIS in the
context of network tools, whereas most registrars would define WHOIS in
terms of its protocol RFC954 which is a Draft standard RFC.  It doesn't
appear that WHOIS is specifically defined in the registrar accreditation
agreement.  I note that in the Neulevel .biz agreement, RFC954 is
specifically referenced:
http://www.icann.org/tlds/agreements/biz/registry-agmt-appo-18jun03.htm)

Question 9: (realtes to task force 2)
9.  Should there be a standard definition of the role of technical and
administrative contacts, as those terms are used in subsections
II.F.1(h) and (i)?

Question 10 (relates to task force 2):
10.  Should efforts be made to encourage better dissemination of
information about the anonymous registration mechanism of subsection
II.J.7(a), third paragraph?


Regards,
Bruce Tonkin


From: http://www.icann.org/committees/whois/touton-letter-01dec00.htm


Letter from Louis Touton to the Committee Requesting Advice on WHOIS
Implementation
(1 December 2000) 

------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------



To the .com/.net/.org Whois committee:

First, let me thank each of you for agreeing to help on reviewing the
various issues concerning implementation of the Whois requirements
embodied in the current agreements with registrars for the .com, .net,
and .org TLDs. 

I understand that in some respects your discussions of the current Whois
service requirements have led the committee to conclude that some new
approaches to providing Whois services (and some new policies) should be
considered.  For example, I understand that you have been discussing
some changes to the terms for access to Whois data that are embodied in
the current agreements.  To the extent that the committee, or any other
group of stakeholders, feels that some policy additions/changes should
be considered, it is of course appropriate and helpful to the
consensus-based process to make those views, and any supporting
analysis, available to the Internet community.  I encourage the
committee (or any of you individually) to prepare a detailed report on
any policy extensions you feel are appropriate.  As stated at the
committee's inception, the ICANN staff intends to refer any such report
to the DNSO (and, if protocol matters are involved, the PSO) for
consideration of whether policy changes or additions should be
recommended.

The primary purpose of this committee, however, is to generate some
advice on specific issues that have arisen in the implementation of
existing Whois provision for registrars in the .com, .net, and .org
TLDs.  To assist the committee in giving focused feedback on the staff's
implementation of the existing agreements, I have prepared the following
list of specific questions.  It would be very helpful to me if the
committee would give its feedback to these questions in a separate
document from any report you might prepare on policy additions/changes
that should be considered.  This will make it easier to determine which
portions of the committee's feedback are intended for use by the ICANN
staff and which portions are appropriately referred to a supporting
organization.

Background on Whois Provisions of Current Agreements

The principal agreement concerning Whois service in the .com, .net, and
.org TLDs is the Registrar Accreditation Agreement. (The ICANN-NSI
Registry Agreement covers registry-level Whois, but implementation of
that has been more straightforward.) The portions of the Registrar
Accreditation Agreement that pertain to Whois are:

Subsection II.F.1 - This subsection contains the basic requirement that
registrars provide Whois service and lists the data elements that must
be provided in response to queries.

Subsection II.F.2 - This subsection requires registrars to update their
Whois databases promptly.

Subsection II.F.3 - This subsection covers subcontracting of Whois
services.

Subsection II.F.4 - This subsection is concerned with registrars'
obligations to provide Whois search functionality across all registrars
within .com/.net/.org.

Subsection II.F.5 - This subsection governs the restrictions that
registrars may place on use of Whois data.

Subsections II.F.6 and 7 - These subsections concern bulk access to
registrant data, a non-Whois issue.

Subsection II.F.8 - This subsection concerns future, amended Whois
policies.

Section II.H - In this section, registrars license Whois providers to
distribute their data.

Subsection II.J.7(a), first paragraph - This paragraph provides that
domain-name holders will provide accurate contact information and
promptly update that information.

Subsection II.J.7(a), second paragraph - This paragraph states that
domain-name holders will be responsive to Registrar efforts to correct
contact data.

Subsection II.J.7(a), third paragraph - This paragraph provides for a
form of anonymous registration.

Subsection II.J.8 - This subsection sets forth requirements for
registrar efforts to keep Whois data accurate and up to date.

An overall goal of the Whois provisions of the Registrar Accreditation
Agreements was to help restore the InterNIC Whois service that existed
in .com, .net, and .org prior to the introduction of multiple
registrars.  This service is described in Section 6.4 of RFC 1580 (FYI
0023).

With the advent of multiple, competitive registrars in .com, .net, and
.org, contact data on domain-name holders was broken up into separate
databases maintained by each sponsoring registrar.  As a result,
searches that were previously possible (e.g., a search for all
.com/.net/.org entries that reference a particular person) were no
longer possible on a TLD-wide basis.  The approach of the agreements was
to require, as an immediate measure, the provision of Whois service from
each registrar's database (subsection II.F.1), and to provide a pathway
toward restoration of a TLD-wide Whois capability.

Implementation Issues

Implementing this approach has presented significant problems.  With a
few exceptions, most registrars have simply implemented a
domain-name-lookup capability, rather than the full features of Whois
described in RFC 1580.  These deficiencies have been aggravated by the
differences in the format and other details implemented by registrars;
these differences have made it difficult for registrars to provide even
a consistent TLD-wide domain-name-lookup service.

To move toward achieving the goals of the Registrar Accreditation
Agreement (or, as some would put it, fixing the now-broken Whois), it
appears that efforts should be made to remedy these problems.  This
effort, of course, should be done in a manner that minimizes the burdens
on registrars, which are (quite properly) occupied with competing to
meet the many facets of registration-market demand.

ICANN staff could benefit from the committee's views on the following
implementation issues:

1.  Should registrars provide Whois replies in a standard format?
Currently, registrars use a wide variety of formats for Whois responses.
If a standard format were employed, it would simplify the efforts of
registrars to provide a seamless, TLD-wide, domain-name-lookup
capability.  While this would not satisfy the long-delayed goal of
restoring full TLD-wide Whois service, it would at least ameliorate the
delay in achieving that goal.

2.  If a standard format is to be encouraged, what should it be?

3.  If registrars provide supplementary data in response to Whois
queries, how should it appear in the overall format?  (Some registrars,
for example, provide an indication that the domain name is subject to a
UDRP proceeding.)

4.  Should registrars be permitted to limit the number of queries from a
particular site?  If so, what limit should apply? Subsection II.F.1 of
the Registrar Accreditation Agreement appears to require free public
access to port 43 Whois service "concerning all active SLD
registrations," indicating that limitations on the number of queries are
not contemplated.  The use of governors, however, can prevent
inappropriate heavy loading of a registrar's Whois systems.  The ICANN
staff would benefit from guidance as to the extent to which it should,
as a matter of enforcement choice, permit use of governors.

5.  Are there some particular sources from which registrars should not
be permitted to limit the number of queries?  Permitting registrars
ungoverned access to each other's Whois services facilitates registrars
in implementing TLD-wide domain-name-lookup service.  Should limitations
on this access be permitted, even if governors are tolerated for other
users?  Are there other sources of queries for which governors should
not be permitted?

6.  Should .com/.net/.org registrars be permitted to limit the number of
responses returned to a single query?  If so, what limit should apply?
Again, subsection II.F.1 of the Registrar Accreditation Agreement
appears to require free public access to port 43 Whois service
"concerning all active SLD registrations," indicating that limiting the
number of responses was not envisioned.  Use of some limits, however,
can prevent abusive use or overly burdensome use of the Whois service.

ICANN staff would benefit from guidance as to the extent to which it
should, as a matter of enforcement of the .com/.net/.org agreements,
require registrars to return all responses that satisfy a given query.

7.  Should the requirement for full (RFC 1580) Whois service, rather
than merely domain-name-lookup service, be vigorously enforced?  Most
registrars appear not to be in compliance with the requirement for true
"Whois" service.  However, prior to implementation of the TLD-wide Whois
service contemplated by subsection II.F.4, registrar-by-registrar Whois
service appears to be of limited value.  Would it be better to avoid
burdening registrars with a requirement for single-registrar Whois
service, so that they can devote their energies toward implementaiton of
a TLD-wide Whois service?

8.  The design of the SRS makes registrar records of host(nameserver) IP
addresses authoritative only when the registrar is sponsoring the domain
name containing the host.  In view of this, should registrars be
required to provide nameserver IP addresses in response to Whois
inquiries?  If so, what measures should registrars take to ensure data
consistency?

9.  Should there be a standard definition of the role of technical and
administrative contacts, as those terms are used in subsections
II.F.1(h) and (i)?

10.  Should efforts be made to encourage better dissemination of
information about the anonymous registration mechanism of subsection
II.J.7(a), third paragraph?

11.  In view of the long delay in implementation of TLD-wide Whois
capability, are there any steps that should be take to encourage
registrars to begin testing possible technologies to meet this
requirement?

The above questions may suggest to the committee other guidance that it
might give on implementation of the Whois requirements; the ICANN staff
would particularly welcome any additional guidance of this nature.

Best regards,

Louis Touton

(1 December 2000)