NCSG-DISCUSS Archives

NCSG-Discuss

NCSG-DISCUSS@LISTSERV.SYR.EDU

Options: Use Forum View

Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Condense Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Mime-Version:
1.0
Content-Type:
text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Date:
Thu, 8 Apr 2004 13:43:57 -0400
Content-Disposition:
inline
Reply-To:
Milton Mueller <[log in to unmask]>
Subject:
Content-Transfer-Encoding:
quoted-printable
Sender:
Non-Commercial User Constituency <[log in to unmask]>
From:
Milton Mueller <[log in to unmask]>
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (28 lines)
Members:
Here is one of the issues that Whois Task Force 1 is discussing.
Most aspects of TF1 are going well, for example there is a 
recognition that sensitive data elements might need to be
restricted and that those who request sensitive data need
to identify themselves. However, I am concerned about this
suggestion of a "white list:" (Jeff Neuman is chair of the TF 1)

comments welcome --MM

>>> "Neuman, Jeff" <[log in to unmask]> 04/06/04 10:12AM >>>
>7)  Other Ideas
>In addition, if Port 43 were retained, the group discussed the 
>possibility of having a central authority (not a registry or registrar) 
>to approve entities that could use Port 43 (i.e., a "White List" of IP
> addresses).  In this scenario, a White List would be created of 
>Requestors that have proven themselves as "legitimate users" 
>of Whois information (i.e.,  Law Enforcement, Consumer 
>organization, Intellectual Property Organizations, etc.)  This list 
>would be provided to the registries and registrars and only
>those Requestors sending requests through Port 43 would be 
>allowed to access the Whois information.  Questions arose 
>concerning (a) who would operate this White List, (b) what 
>would be the criteria for being on this White List, and (c) whether 
>it was actually feasible to implement.

>Please feel free to comment.

ATOM RSS1 RSS2