[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