Commerce Dept. Orders NSI to Open "Whois" Database

Sawmill writes "The US Commerce Department has ordered NSI to open the "whois" database to companies. This is either really good (free the information!) or really bad (SPAM hell). " Either way, it looks like NSI has been stepping on an awful lot of toes lately. Something's got to change over there.

Comments

More spam is good!

[Anonymous Coward]

It's of course possible that this will increase spam. One can probably say as much about a zillion other things, but let's suppose that in this case, it's true. If this did increase spam, however, there's a way to look at it that says that this would be a good thing. Yes, you heard me; more spam is a good thing. Stay with me a second, here. If there's more spam, there's more annoyance, more theft, and more really pissed off people. Eventually they all stand up and storm Congress in righteous anger, and a law is passed making spam so grievously illegal that a vigilante economy arises as the international award of US$10,000 per hand of a spammer drives the world market to never ending heights.

OFF WITH THEIR HANDS!

ha ha

[drwiii]

I hope they are ordered to release it. I don't mind being spammed, as long as it means N$I will get the shaft. Does this mean we can start rioting outside their headquarters now? (:

Spam isn't the issue

[copito]

I'm as anti-spam as the next Joe Hacker, but let's face it. Spammers have many ways of harvesting email addresses and opening the whois database makes one avenue a little easier. Besides, who better to competently trace, filter, block or otherwise thwart spammers than domain contacts, who are presumably technically competent people.
If things would be so bad, what's stopping the spammers now. A legal clause at the beginning of a whois result? At very worst, another company will repackage the whois database and sell the info in it. At that point there may be some increased spam, but what exactly prevented somebody from doing that before the whois database was "privatized." Has anyone actually gotten less spam since the privatization?
In short, we all hate spam, and we all hate NSI, and most of us probably have no great love for the Commerce Department. Let's not let our fears and prejudices cloud the domain issue any more than it is.
--

Who "owns" the database?

[Hacksaw]

As far as I am concerned, I own my entries in that database.

That information is strictly for technical communication ("Computers in your domain are being used to flood ping our site.", "We can't send mail to anyone in your domain.") and administrative communication ("We would like to buy your domain.", "One of your computers is being used to sell guns illegally.")

NSI's role should be one of record-keeper. I paid for the domain name, not them.

Re:Who "owns" the database?

[dillon_rinker]

The phone company makes money by selling directory info. They count on this income when they determine prices. If you deny them this income, then they will set their prices accordingly. It is no different than if they offered you a $3 discount for the privilege of listing your information.

Re:Who "owns" the database?

[Ded Bob]

In a sense, the one who compiles the database is the owner. Do you own the entry in your local phone book that has your name, number and address? Do you want it back?

When there was a discussion about the CDDB database, I could see somewhat more clearly that the people who entered in all the songs for a CD might have "ownership" of those entries. With NSI, they entered in all the information much like a phone book from the billing and administrative information you provided them.

OTOH, for the competitors of NSI to function correctly they will need access to that database. I doubt they need a full copy of it though. A copy would be out of date before it was done being copied.

I feel that it is a tough call to make.

There is a way to surf the whois database!!

[chirayu]

http://www.domainsurfer.com/ allows one to search the whole database for a domain name (full or part). Someone can probably write a script which can recreate the database at his/her end.

What say u ppl?

CP

Re:What about last week's story about NSI?

[Demona]

I really hope you're enjoying yourself, because I doubt anyone else here is.

My kneejerk reaction with law generally being the same as HTML: "'Force' does not work on the World Wide Web," and my generally contrary nature would lead me, if I were an NSI head honcho, to say, "What will you do to me if I don't?" But more importantly, it seems most of the people involved are forgetting that real people will be affected by these policies:

"This was built under government contract and the data does not belong to Network Solutions," said Rich Forman, president of New York Based register.com.

No, you goober, it belongs to the owner. You remember, the person who registered the domain? Of course, other than the not-for-all-individuals Individual Domain Name Owners, there isn't much collective effort to protect individual rights. Which of course makes perfect sense; nobody else will have the motivation to protect your interests that you do.

Very good news, but not the end of the story

[phred]

I just received my new copy of Internet World with my friend Jim Rutt's face on the cover. The headline reads "The Demise of Dot Com: And the political storm ahead for Network Solutions' James Rutt." It's not online at Internet World yet so I can't give a specific pointer.

Anyway, it's about time the Commerce Department started closing on this issue. NSI's position has a certain amount of appeal from a self-dealing point of view, but is completely contrary to the intent and the blackletter of the 1993 agreement. They are supposed to manage the whois database in public trust, not convert it to private intellectual property for their own convenience and profit.

The analogy with phone numbers is wrong. Like it or not, the phone company does own your number, although there are some gray-area issues there too.

This issue is fundamental to the autonomy of the global Internet from control by NSI or any other entity. ICANN has problems too, but they are separate.

Let me state this very clearly: we don't know what NSI's intentions are, so we have to separate speculation from reality. But the possibility exists that a privatized whois database would be the leading edge to privatizing the Domain Name System as a whole. What would we do in 1999 or 2000 to overcome such a development?

I urged Jim Rutt in private and reiterate in public my plea for NSI to drop this issue and get to the business at hand: improving NSI's service to its customers, which is widely and correctly regarded as being crummy. They have many advantages as a result of being awarded "first mover" position in the market by virtue of their current government contracts. They would do well to defend that advantage through superior service rather than lawsuits, political arm-twisting and worse.

-------

Re:Who "owns" the database? They do

[Kaa]

As far as I am concerned, I own my entries in that database.

Well, that may be fine as far as you are concerned, but this doesn't fly in the real world. Ownership is a legal concept and there is a whole bunch of laws dealing with ownership of information. Hate to disappoint you, but if you compile a database, you own it, not the people who submitted info to you in the first place.

There is a lot of discussion about whether a collection of information (database) is legally different from the same pieces of information separately, but that's not what we are talking about. You don't own anything at all in the NSI database. If you feel that they did something wrong with your entry, you can sue them, but the suit will be under tort law (injuries/damages) and not under ownership law.


Kaa