NSI Claims whois Database is Proprietary

phred writes "In yet another sign of advanced corporate megalomania, Chris Clough, a spokesman for Network Solutions, Inc., is quoted in an ABC News online story as claiming that the whois database is a proprietary product of NSI and is being provided to the net as a "community service." (This item first noted Tomalak's Realm)." And I for one am oh-so-pleased that NSI is using their property to Spam us with commercials about NSI so that they can protect their butts when they lose their monopoly.

Comments

NSI is pushing their luck

[Rocky Mudbutt]

Is it time to start an FSF/Opensource NIC? The technology is not difficult, it is the support of the vast hordes of non-technical (clue-impaired) users requesting their "stupidname.com" which are providing NSI with their windfall, headaches, and raison d'etre. Supporting the technically competent, with their corresponding lower support costs; might make a viable non-profit company.

Of course, there is always the renegade DNS route. To make it take off and stick, one would need superior technology, a strategy that would embrace and superceed the BIND cartels jugular embrace of the Internet name space, and a desire for an alternative which can provide both alternate and backward compatible name space.

I would think the non-North American entities who are at the mercy of NSI for Global Top Level Domain Names could agree on an LDAP name system that makes NSI obsolete, and removes the North American legal system and copyright law from what is clearly a Universal Name Registrar.

This is not a new debate. The control of the Internet has long been a US Government/Academia/Military/Commercial playground. What is needed in the 21st century will be an abstraction away from the cultural straightjacket that has been so widely forcefed to the world as "technology". I would hope to hear that the other 90% of the world's population have a say in how names are fairly allocated, and we would all benefit from a broader perspective.

A solution?

[tgd]

Here's a thought. Let NSI do whatever they damn well please. When ICANN takes over the root nameservers, simply give the other registration services that are freely providing their databases priority in the root servers. Ie, Microsoft registers microsoft.com with NSI, they better hope (and pressure) NSI to keep all the whois information completely and 100% free, or someone else will register microsoft.com with another registrar who is freely sharing information. (Linus website anyone?) ;)

In all seriousness though, if they want to claim the information is propriatary, then ICANN can't exactly integrate the information into the root servers, can they?

I was wondering the same thing...

[Anonymous Coward]

The only reason NSI has that much power is becase we all cooperate volunteerily by pointing our name server software exclusively at their root servers. Anyone out there can set up a root server (I and a friend did it once to see what would be involved. Took about 2 hours to figure everything out and create a .linux domain that 2 machines in the whole wild world could see.)

The way current DNS software works, you DO have to be careful not to pollute anyone else's root servers, but anyone out there with a UNIX box and a dedicated connection could redefine the entire internet however they wanted to for anyone who cared to point their name servers to the new root servers.

Note that this has been attempted in the past (Do your research on the alternic and others) but they did not really have a lot of support and if I recall correctly some of them tried a silly stunt or two that was bad judgement at its worst.

Anyway, it can be done and there's an increasing need for it to be done. If anyone comes up with something, I'll be happy to point my DNS at them.

Freely available to all

[gordoni]

Under the terms of the original contract between the NSF and Network Solutions (Awardee's Proposal Q.1):

"the information we collect and dispense will be freely available to all."

That said, the complete legal situation is faily complicated. My understanding of it is as follows. The registration database is probably capable of being copyrighted, however such a copyright would be a thin copyright that would not prevent others constructing a new database from facts contained in the original database. If this is the case, Network Solutions probably owns this copyright, but has failed in its contractual duty to inform the NSF of its claim of copyright in it's annual report (I discovered this by filing a FOIA request). To keep ownership of the database copyright upon termination of the contract, Network Solutions would have to pay 1-3% of the databases fair market value to the government. For the duration of the contract, Network Solutions is required to make the database freely available. The NSF can also obtain a copy of the database including on termination of the contract, but has not made such a request.

Freely available to all

[gordoni]

Nope, a FOIA request won't work, it's already been tried...

In responding to a FOIA request submitted by Corsearch in 1996 requesting a copy of the domain name database (NSF FOIA No. 96-090 Request), the NSF claimed (NSF FOIA No. 96-090 Response):

"NSF does not possess or control the domain name database ..."

An administrative appeal of this decision was made (NSF FOIA No. 96-090 Appeal). This appeal was rejected. The words "possess" and "control" are being used here in the context of the Freedom of Information Act to determine if the database is an "agency record", and not in respect of claims to ownership of intellectual property. These are the same terms used in the FLITE case (Baizer v. Department of the Air Force, 887 F. Supp. 225 (N.D. Cal. 1995). The FLITE decision has been criticized for its "broad assertion of an exemption from FOIA for 'library' materials, and its questionable use of legal precedent" ( Supreme Court Decisions in FLITE database, Information Policy Notes, Taxpayers Assets Project). The Flite decision draws upon the Supreme Court decision in Department of Justice v. Tax Analysts, 492 US 136 (1989).

So, the NSF has the right to obtain a copy of the database from Network Solutions, but because the NSF has not chosen to obtain the database, it is not possible to obtain the database from the NSF under the FOIA. And even if the NSF did have a copy of the database, it is not clear, in the light of the FLITE decision, whether the NSF would be required to make the database available under the FOIA.

ICANN guilty of smearing with bullshit FUD

[igjeff]

Actually, they *are*, at least in some ways, restricting access to the whois database through whois client connections.

Try some sort of keyword search and see how many entries return...much fewer than there used to be.

Try to show the domains that have you listed as a contact...oh, you can only get the first 50 that way?

Try to find information about the availability of the domain in the DNS servers...oh, they took the On Hold status off of that return as well.

Slowly, but surely, NSI *is* restricting access...both through their website, *and* through the whois client.

The addition is the redirect from www.internic.net to www.networksolutions.com, while not impairing functionality in an of itself, sets a *VERY* dangerous precedent and course for NSI. Essentially, by putting that redirect in, if its not challenged, then NSI can claim that you register information via NSI's website and via NSI, not necessarily through the InterNIC, which NSI just happens to be providing services to. If they are allowed to assert that concept, what happens when the government or ICANN decides to either put another company in charge of interNIC, or open it up so that multiple companies have equal access to it (through whatever mechanism)? NSI can then claim that these domain names are registered through them, are their Intellectual Property, and you can't make changes via another company, whether they are now part or all of the InterNIC or not!

Jeff