Thank you for expanding and reformulating the recommendation 17. To my honest surprise the currenct form of this recommendation does not match the original intend anymore. So let me rephrase the main issues again: The AOC requires an "unrestriced and unlimited access to complete data for everybody". The current implementations violate this requirement in three ways: a) Most interfaces are rate limited or otherwise restriced b) Many interfaces does not offer the full set of information c) The interfaces are hard to find and often difficult to use So the recommendation 17 is simply saying: "Please build or extend an interface which is: - Web based for "easy access for everybody" (to solve c) - Multilingual for the same reason - Follows the WHOIS server references downtree starting at whois.iana.org to find any WHOIS server (not just a gTLD) and the necessary information (to solve c and overcome the thin/thick WHOIS discussion at all) - By insisting on ICANN as an operator of this service access to the WHOIS servers of the various partes can be made unrestricted (to solve a) as well as complete (to solve b) This is quite different from the current proposal to do some cosmetic changes on the Internic website ... Sorry.
Technically speaking is there any need of a new Whois pattern? Or it's a matter of Whois database (and interface) stardardization? Omar 2012/4/25 Lutz Donnerhacke <lutz@iks-jena.de>:
Thank you for expanding and reformulating the recommendation 17.
To my honest surprise the currenct form of this recommendation does not match the original intend anymore. So let me rephrase the main issues again:
The AOC requires an "unrestriced and unlimited access to complete data for everybody". The current implementations violate this requirement in three ways: a) Most interfaces are rate limited or otherwise restriced b) Many interfaces does not offer the full set of information c) The interfaces are hard to find and often difficult to use
So the recommendation 17 is simply saying: "Please build or extend an interface which is: - Web based for "easy access for everybody" (to solve c) - Multilingual for the same reason - Follows the WHOIS server references downtree starting at whois.iana.org to find any WHOIS server (not just a gTLD) and the necessary information (to solve c and overcome the thin/thick WHOIS discussion at all) - By insisting on ICANN as an operator of this service access to the WHOIS servers of the various partes can be made unrestricted (to solve a) as well as complete (to solve b)
This is quite different from the current proposal to do some cosmetic changes on the Internic website ... Sorry. _______________________________________________ Rt4-whois mailing list Rt4-whois@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/rt4-whois
On Wed, Apr 25, 2012 at 07:23:07PM -0300, Omar Kaminski wrote:
Technically speaking is there any need of a new Whois pattern? Or it's a matter of Whois database (and interface) stardardization?
Technically speaking there is a need for encoding abstraction and structure preserving transport format ... like RESTful-Whois using XML. Practically speaking the current text based implementating only needs some best current practices (i.e. a swift to UTF8 encoing and some field naming recommendations like "refer: level-deeper-whois-server"). Lawfully speaking the current storage model violates the many local and international data protection laws and the access to the data violates further local laws. So we have to face a strong move to thinner WHOIS models. Crime fighters are in the opposite situation and would prefer to have all the date stored centrally so that they have easy access to complete data while others might have limited up to no access. So we have to face a strong move to thicker WHOIS models.
From the point of usability all of those issues are irrelevant and need to be hidden behind a Web interface as requested by the original rec 17.
Dear Lutz, Seems we're still facing different rules for (many) different situations (and patterns): thick/thin on current storage model. How deep should be the "standardization" untill reach a new layer of protection and privacy, and who should control (we could say own) this "private" data, otherwise public by default ("common")? Omar Em 25 de abril de 2012 19:34, Lutz Donnerhacke <lutz@iks-jena.de> escreveu:
On Wed, Apr 25, 2012 at 07:23:07PM -0300, Omar Kaminski wrote:
Technically speaking is there any need of a new Whois pattern? Or it's a matter of Whois database (and interface) stardardization?
Technically speaking there is a need for encoding abstraction and structure preserving transport format ... like RESTful-Whois using XML.
Practically speaking the current text based implementating only needs some best current practices (i.e. a swift to UTF8 encoing and some field naming recommendations like "refer: level-deeper-whois-server").
Lawfully speaking the current storage model violates the many local and international data protection laws and the access to the data violates further local laws. So we have to face a strong move to thinner WHOIS models.
Crime fighters are in the opposite situation and would prefer to have all the date stored centrally so that they have easy access to complete data while others might have limited up to no access. So we have to face a strong move to thicker WHOIS models.
From the point of usability all of those issues are irrelevant and need to be hidden behind a Web interface as requested by the original rec 17.
participants (2)
-
Lutz Donnerhacke -
Omar Kaminski