[At-Large] New Whois Access Audit posted

Antony Van Couvering avc at namesatwork.com
Thu May 3 17:22:19 UTC 2012


> 
> 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 at atlarge-lists.icann.org
> https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large
> 
> At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org





More information about the At-Large mailing list