Steinar,
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> > > The whois database is part and parcel, a necessary element of DNS
> > > operation. It is impossible (or at least unreasonable) to conceive of
> > > running a TLD zone file without keeping track of who is associated with
> > > each second level domain.
> >
> > Actually, that's incorrect. The DNS SOA record shows who produced the
> > record and according to the RFC's the postmaster@... address is mandatory.
> > There is just no technical *NEED* to have more data.
>
> Being a TLD administrator, you know as well as I do that the info in
> the SOA record isn't always correct, and postmaster@ addresses don't
> always work.
That is totally besides the point.
According to the RFC's the SOAs *HAVE* to be correct. Mine are (I
generate the Zones with SQL statements so it's easy to do).
And according to the RFCs the postmaster addresses *HAVE* to
work. Mine do.
> There is a real, *technical* need to be able to get hold of domain
> contact persons. The info needed to do this sometimes includes
> phone/ fax number and street address - email isn't always enough.
No, there may be a real *ADMINISTRATIVE* need for those. There is *NO*
RFC (that I am aware of) *REQUIRING* a WHOIS data base. If they do
that, they are very helpful, but it is of course their intellectual
property and thus they should be entitled to just compensation at the
very least.
> > In fact .NA does not give out this information for its registrants and
> > that has been working for almost 8 years.
>
> It may work *for the .NA registry* because the .NA registry has the
> contact information, and is able to use other means than email when
> necessary.
Well, the .NA registry clears specifies that the domains might be
turned off if the addresses don't work.
> I agree that it's probably not strictly necessary to *publish* the
> contact information to the rest of the world, *if* you don't want
> the rest of the world to be able to reach the domain contacts.
In Germany, and other European countries, it might actually be illegal
under their data protection acts, to p�ublish this information.
The point remains, that there is no technical requirement and no RFC
requireing a Registry to provide this data, free of charge or
otherwise. It also follows that NSI might very well have an
intellectual property claim here.
greetings, el
