The study seems flawed to me. 1. Why if it has to do with Port 43 are unreachable websites considered a fail? That would make sense for web-based Whois, but not for Port 43. 2. Why is rate-limiting considered a fail? This is put in place by responsible registrars to prevent scraping of Whois data by spammers. Antony On May 2, 2012, at 8:57 AM, Bill Silverstein wrote:
Why is there a compliance rate of less than 100%??
Why not identify the non-compliant registrars?
Why not terminate the non-compliant registrars?
In the past, I have found that registrar compliance and enforcement from ICANN to be a joke. The failure to include the public as 3rd party beneficiaries and the failure of ICANN to do meaningful enforcement makes much of the RAA a joke.
A new Whois Port 43 Access audit has been posted - http://www.icann.org/en/resources/compliance/audits.
Alam
_______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large
At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
_______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large
At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org