Re: NSI Bulletin 098-010 | Update on Whois
The WHOIS database has a long history traced back through several generations of managers to the early days of ARPA, DCA, IANA, SRI. I don't think anyone really has clear title to claim 'ownership' of the data. The database has been transfered several times already from one contractor to the next. SRI transfered it to GSI, and then to NSI. The database has been split several times. Such as when .MIL was split off, when .GOV was split off, when ARIN was split off. Usually these splits have ended up screwing up the NICHANDLES of those ancient individuals on the net. Giving NSI the benefit of the doubt, I assume NSI will transfer the database to whatever the successor organization (or organizations) is, as NSI has previous done with the .GOV data, and NET-BLK data. As far as the only supported interfaces for retrieving the data from NSI being the WHOIS port and the anonymous FTP zone files, if you look at it in the best light, I would refer back to the cooperative agreement with NSF. As much as I dislike SPAM, I do not think concern about the use of the data for marketing purposes is a good justification for NSI to unilaterally block individuals from accessing the WHOIS data. I would be interested in knowing why a couple of sites have found the need to query the WHOIS data so heavily. And once we knew their need, perhaps finding a better solution. But the NSF cooperative agreement didn't really say much about finding new ways to efficiently distribute the WHOIS database. But, as folks around the beltway like to say, its not NSI's bailiwick. If NSI is looking for a nice off-site storage facility to store a backup of the database in case something happens on the east coast (see http://nic.ddn.mil/DNS/root-server.html) I know of a nice centrally located facility :-) -- Sean Donelan, Data Research Associates, Inc, St. Louis, MO Affiliation given for identification not representation
Anyone using Lotus Notes internally? Whois screams for a Notes style implmentation for distribution. Replication from a central point, to leaf nodes. NIC handles implemented as seperate documents from domain registrations with doclinks ... If Mr. Holtzman is game .?.?. Would you bite as NSP's with legitimate need for it? Eric At 05:56 PM 9/3/98 -0500, Sean Donelan wrote:
The WHOIS database has a long history traced back through several generations of managers to the early days of ARPA, DCA, IANA, SRI. I don't think anyone really has clear title to claim 'ownership' of the data.
The database has been transfered several times already from one contractor to the next. SRI transfered it to GSI, and then to NSI. The database has been split several times. Such as when .MIL was split off, when .GOV was split off, when ARIN was split off. Usually these splits have ended up screwing up the NICHANDLES of those ancient individuals on the net.
Giving NSI the benefit of the doubt, I assume NSI will transfer the database to whatever the successor organization (or organizations) is, as NSI has previous done with the .GOV data, and NET-BLK data.
As far as the only supported interfaces for retrieving the data from NSI being the WHOIS port and the anonymous FTP zone files, if you look at it in the best light, I would refer back to the cooperative agreement with NSF. As much as I dislike SPAM, I do not think concern about the use of the data for marketing purposes is a good justification for NSI to unilaterally block individuals from accessing the WHOIS data.
I would be interested in knowing why a couple of sites have found the need to query the WHOIS data so heavily. And once we knew their need, perhaps finding a better solution. But the NSF cooperative agreement didn't really say much about finding new ways to efficiently distribute the WHOIS database. But, as folks around the beltway like to say, its not NSI's bailiwick.
If NSI is looking for a nice off-site storage facility to store a backup of the database in case something happens on the east coast (see http://nic.ddn.mil/DNS/root-server.html) I know of a nice centrally located facility :-) -- Sean Donelan, Data Research Associates, Inc, St. Louis, MO Affiliation given for identification not representation
========================================================================== Eric Germann CCTec ekgermann@cctec.com Van Wert, OH 45891 http://www.cctec.com Ph: 419 968 2640 Fax: 419 968 2641 Network Design, Connectivity & System Integration Services A Microsoft Solution Provider
On Thu, Sep 03, 1998 at 05:56:05PM -0500, Sean Donelan wrote:
As far as the only supported interfaces for retrieving the data from NSI being the WHOIS port and the anonymous FTP zone files, if you look at it in the best light, I would refer back to the cooperative agreement with NSF. As much as I dislike SPAM, I do not think concern about the use of the data for marketing purposes is a good justification for NSI to unilaterally block individuals from accessing the WHOIS data.
Well, I've been LARTed big time by the customer service director at NSI. :) He made a very good point: that SAIC is a separate entity (and a SHAREHOLDER - NSI is not a subsidiary of SAIC) and they are not necessarily going to be selling the *WHOIS* database... so for now I think I can give them the benefit of the doubt... -- "You know, I've decided lizards aren't too smart." --Me, to "Junior", one of my iguanas
At 23:26 9/3/98 -0400, you wrote:
On Thu, Sep 03, 1998 at 05:56:05PM -0500, Sean Donelan wrote:
As far as the only supported interfaces for retrieving the data from NSI being the WHOIS port and the anonymous FTP zone files, if you look at it in the best light, I would refer back to the cooperative agreement with NSF. As much as I dislike SPAM, I do not think concern about the use of the data for marketing purposes is a good justification for NSI to unilaterally block individuals from accessing the WHOIS data.
Well, I've been LARTed big time by the customer service director at NSI. :)
He made a very good point: that SAIC is a separate entity (and a SHAREHOLDER - NSI is not a subsidiary of SAIC) and they are not necessarily going to be selling the *WHOIS* database... so for now I think I can give them the benefit of the doubt...
He lied. Blatantly, obviously and willfully. "The Company is a wholly-owned subsidiary of SAIC. Upon completion of this offering, SAIC will own 100% of the Company's outstanding Class B Common Stock, which will represent approximately 78.4% of the outstanding Common Stock of the Company (approximately 75.9% if the Underwriters' over-allotment option is exercised in full) and approximately 97.3% of the combined voting power of the Company's outstanding Common Stock (approximately 96.9% if the Underwriters' over-allotment option is exercised in full), and will continue to control the Company. See "Relationship with SAIC and Certain Transactions"..." [http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/3906/0000950133-97-003381.txt - "Prospectus, Network Solutions, Inc.", filed 9/26/97]. Note the last sentence carefully. Furthermore, 7 of the 9 Directors at NSI are also Directors at SAIC (see URL below). Regarding the "ownership" of WhoIs and the use to which NSI intends to put it: "In addition, the Company intends to develop a portfolio of Internet-enabling products and services, which may include directory and distribution services, that allows the Company to build upon its position in the registration process and makes proper use of the customer data that the Company collects." [ibid, pg. 5] "The Company has compiled a database of information relating to customers in its registration business. While a portion of this database is available to the public, the Company believes that it has certain ownership rights in this database and is seeking to protect such rights. If it were determined that the Company does not have ownership rights in this database or if the Company is unable to protect such rights in this database or is required to share the database with its potential competitors, there could be a material adverse effect on the Company's business, financial condition and results of operations." [ibid, pg. 17] EDGAR is a wunnerful thing. It can show clearly and easily when someone like this Customer Services Director lies through his teeth. NSI *IS* a wholly-owned subsidiary and NSI plans to use WhoIs for mailings ("distribution services") even if they don't sell it outright. Side note: The VeriSign spams are also easily explained: "Stratton D. Sclavos 36 Mr. Sclavos has served as a director of the Company since 1997. Mr. Sclavos has served as President and Chief Executive Officer of VeriSign, Inc., a provider of digital certificate services, since 1995." [http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1030341/0000950133-98-001406.txt] Wabbit season!..duck season!..wabbit season!..duck season!..SPAMMER SEASON! Dean Robb PC-EASY computer services (757) 495-EASY [3279]
On Fri, Sep 04, 1998 at 08:23:29PM -0400, Dean Robb wrote:
[http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/3906/0000950133-97-003381.txt - "Prospectus, Network Solutions, Inc.", filed 9/26/97]. Note the last sentence carefully.
The closest thing I could find was 0000950133-97-003380.txt.
Officer of VeriSign, Inc., a provider of digital certificate services, since 1995." [http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1030341/0000950133-98-001406.txt]
Interesting. -- "You know, I've decided lizards aren't too smart." --Me, to "Junior", one of my iguanas
On Thu, 3 Sep 1998, Sean Donelan wrote:
with NSF. As much as I dislike SPAM, I do not think concern about the use of the data for marketing purposes is a good justification for NSI to unilaterally block individuals from accessing the WHOIS data.
According to David Holtzman of NSI (i asked him), the restrictions on whois are merely for technical reasons. I believe that he believes this, and from his point of view they have every right to filter/limit obnoxious or badly configured hosts/sites. But even if what he thinks is true, the facts are that NSI is restricting access to the database while using it's data for mailings designed to make a profit. I'm not an attorney, but it sounds like any spammer/marketeer could sue them successfully unless they can show that they own the database, or that the database owner wants the status to remain quo.
I would be interested in knowing why a couple of sites have found the need to query the WHOIS data so heavily. And once we knew their need, perhaps finding a better solution. But the NSF cooperative agreement
George wouldn't tell me who they are but he implied that they are just clueless.
If NSI is looking for a nice off-site storage facility to store a backup of the database in case something happens on the east coast (see http://nic.ddn.mil/DNS/root-server.html) I know of a nice centrally located facility :-) -- Sean Donelan, Data Research Associates, Inc, St. Louis, MO
You mean Saint Louis? The original home of the FidoNet NIC? Sounds good to me. Bill
In article <Pine.BSD/.3.91.980909153738.7931A@crispy.iconn.net> you write:
According to David Holtzman of NSI (i asked him), the restrictions on whois are merely for technical reasons. I believe that he believes this, and from his point of view they have every right to filter/limit obnoxious or badly configured hosts/sites.
I have a call to arms. If we could get orginizations to mirror the whois data, and provide full, public access to it (via the current whois database) we could remove some of the dependency on NSI. After all, they don't run the only root, lots of other people run them as well...why should they run the only whois server? If we could get some geograpically distributed and have a whois-servers.net like root-servers.net to find them all that would be highly useful. It would distribute the load and make whois more reliable since there would be multiple servers. The mirrors could also develop advanced interfaces on their own (web/e-mail, better searching, whatever) as value adds. I'd even support fees for the value adds as long as the basic "whois" method remained free. Thoughts? -- Leo Bicknell - bicknell@dimension.net Network Engineer (CCIE #3440) - Dimension Enterprises 1-703-709-7500, fax, 1-703-709-7699
At 17:29 9/9/98 -0400, you wrote:
In article <Pine.BSD/.3.91.980909153738.7931A@crispy.iconn.net> you write:
According to David Holtzman of NSI (i asked him), the restrictions on whois are merely for technical reasons. I believe that he believes this, and from his point of view they have every right to filter/limit obnoxious or badly configured hosts/sites.
I have a call to arms. If we could get orginizations to mirror the whois data, and provide full, public access to it (via the current whois database) we could remove some of the dependency on NSI. After all, they don't run the only root, lots of other people run them as well...why should they run the only whois server?
Isn't/wasn't this supposed to be rWhoIs? A cynical mind might note that the contractually-mandated development of rWhoIs hasn't really happened. An even more cynical mind might note that the proper development and implementation of rWhoIs would dilute the control NSI has over the WhoIs database...along with it's financial prospects. Wabbit season!..duck season!..wabbit season!..duck season!..SPAMMER SEASON! Dean Robb PC-EASY computer services (757) 495-EASY [3279]
On 9 Sep 98, at 16:03, Bill Becker wrote:
But even if what he thinks is true, the facts are that NSI is restricting access to the database while using it's data for mailings designed to make a profit. I'm not an attorney, but it sounds like any spammer/marketeer could sue them successfully unless they can show that they own the database, or that the database owner wants the status to remain quo.
It sounds like NSI is restricting access to WHOIS on the same grounds that all of us resist SPAM: self-defense of technical resources.
participants (7)
-
Bill Becker
-
Dean Robb
-
Eric Germann
-
Leo Bicknell
-
Mark Borchers
-
Sean Donelan
-
Steven J. Sobol