I would strongly object to any of those items being characterized as "content."  And even if they were "content," that is not a per se exclusion in any way.

It's more appropriate to characterize them as "use" and more specifically "abuse."

Many, if not most, threats to security and other forms of abuse involve both the registration of a domain name and the use of that domain name in some fashion.  It's clear and critical that we need to allow for elements of use to be included in the purposes for which RDS data is used.

This work is done now, regularly and successfully, using WHOIS data among other things.  We have no mandate to restrict these uses (and as Greg A. notes, we're at a point where discussion of restrictions are premature).

As a final note, discussions about whether something is "required" or "difficult" or "impossible" are largely beside the point, and also raise serious concerns.  If a particular use of RDS data is excluded because it's not absolutely required in every instance, or because it's "difficult" but not "impossible" to work without it, there are significant costs and consequences that would arise from any such exclusion.  Something that is more difficult is more costly, more complex, more time-consuming, more prone to failure, more burdensome and/or more resource-intensive.  Difficulty is a deterrent.  We have no mandate as a group to make things more difficult for current users of RDS-type data or to deter legitimate activity.

Greg Shatan