New Whois Access Audit posted
A new Whois Port 43 Access audit has been posted - http://www.icann.org/en/resources/compliance/audits. Alam
Interesting explanation for the lower compliance rate.... - Carlton ============================== Carlton A Samuels Mobile: 876-818-1799 *Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround* ============================= On Wed, May 2, 2012 at 10:01 AM, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>wrote:
A new Whois Port 43 Access audit has been posted - http://www.icann.org/en/resources/compliance/audits.
Alam
_______________________________________________ ALAC-Internal mailing list ALAC-Internal@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac-internal
ALAC Wiki: https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALA...)
At-Large Website: http://atlarge.icann.org
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
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
On 5/2/2012 6:46 PM, Antony Van Couvering wrote:
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.
A Registrar has to provide both a web based whois lookup AND a port 43 direct look-up facility. I agree the wordign is rather obscoure for the two registrars:
• Two cases were attributed to either a website failure or distributed denial-of- service (DDoS) attack which contributed to the inability to access port 43 WHOIS servers.
2. Why is rate-limiting considered a fail? This is put in place by responsible registrars to prevent scraping of Whois data by spammers.
It is not the rate limiting which is considered a fail, rather too severe rate limiting. We need to also note that many countries have invisible proxies which causes an incorrect statistic on an IP address. I myself have done a look-up and on the first look-up I encounter a "rate exceeded" error.
Antony Derek
* Antony Van Couvering wrote:
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.
The RAA requires both. Port 43 is the well known port for WHOIS. Naming the web access port would cause confusion (as naming the other port number).
2. Why is rate-limiting considered a fail? This is put in place by responsible registrars to prevent scraping of Whois data by spammers.
The AoC requires ICANN to provide "an unrestricted, public access to complete and timely data" in terms of WHOIS. Rate limits are - strictly speaking - illegal for ICANN accredited registrars. But ICANN tolerates use usage. If a service is unreachable, too strict rate limits might give the cause. So they investigated "unreachable WHOIS" further and throw out rate limits as a possible cause.
The RAA requires both. Port 43 is the well known port for WHOIS. Naming the web access port would cause confusion (as naming the other port number).
That's right, but this study is called the Port 43 Whois study. So I don't understand why unreachable websites are relevant. On May 3, 2012, at 3:15 AM, Lutz Donnerhacke wrote:
* Antony Van Couvering wrote:
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.
The RAA requires both. Port 43 is the well known port for WHOIS. Naming the web access port would cause confusion (as naming the other port number).
2. Why is rate-limiting considered a fail? This is put in place by responsible registrars to prevent scraping of Whois data by spammers.
The AoC requires ICANN to provide "an unrestricted, public access to complete and timely data" in terms of WHOIS.
Rate limits are - strictly speaking - illegal for ICANN accredited registrars. But ICANN tolerates use usage.
If a service is unreachable, too strict rate limits might give the cause. So they investigated "unreachable WHOIS" further and throw out rate limits as a possible cause. _______________________________________________ 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
participants (6)
-
Alan Greenberg -
Antony Van Couvering -
Bill Silverstein -
Carlton Samuels -
Derek Smythe -
Lutz Donnerhacke