[ppml] Access to Bulk WHOIS data - a possible proposal?

[william at elan.net]

> Look, this is a language problem and a difficulty with the subtlety of
> American Legal language...
> 
> The particular proposal number William refers to was published as status:
> "Abandoned". 
Its still published with status "under discussion" as BoT has not made a 
final decision, there is recomendation from AC meeting (their minutes 
http://www.arin.net/library/minutes/ac/ac2003_0408.html) to abandon the 
proposal and instead "change existing policy proposal". But the original 
language already said the proposal was changing existing policy (although 
I did not specifically list which one and I have corrected this error in 
new version) and there are already other proposals that also change existing
policies and none of them were abandoned because of that.

> This is because there were multiple related policy proposals
Not for Whois AUP / Bulk Whois. This was the only one.

On the meeting, there were related proposals for micro-assignments (2002-3 
and 2003-6) and there were related proposals for network abuse issues 
(2003-1 and 2003-2). For network abuse neither 2003-1 nor 2003-2 
were officially recommended to be abandon (read the minutes), despite that
there was completely no support for 2003-2 and limited support for 2003-1 
(and no support on particular language there - and in that case actual 
poll on that was done).

> and the AC group has abandoned most of them in favor of adding their
> contents/intents to one unified proposal.
Except that is not what happened. There was and still is only one proposal 
to address whois aup and bulk whois - no other proposals on this issue 
exist. There were some discussion about if this should be addressed in 
the one unified proposal (as I have done) or by two different proposals, 
I believe most agreed that one proposal is better, but again there was no 
poll on this issue, so lets be clear I'm advocating one proposal, I'm not 
sure what AC is advocating but it would not be a "unified" proposal - 
it'll either be proposal which is exactly the same as what I'm doing or 
(opposite to unified) - splitting it into two parts (which would still be 
heavily related and unclear if it makes sence to pass them separatly).
 
> There is a significant difference between "Policy xxxx-y status Abandoned"
> and abandoning the intent of proposal xxxx-y.  In this case, the intent
> lives on and is being worked on, just the number has changed.  However, to
> meet the legal requirements of disposition of policy proposals, if you
> are creating one proposal from more than one proposal, most of the proposals
> have to be "abandoned" officially.
I'm aware of the difference between proposal being abandoned and the idea 
beeing abandoned. The whole issue is that AC exceeded its authority by 
officially recommending that the proposal be abandoned despite support 
for it. AC members could present their ideas or particular revisions or 
text to me or do it on the list, so we get better final text and if 
necessary that text could be sent to ARIN counsil for review (as they 
noted in the minutes), and I never had problems with necessity to make 
some revisions to original text. So as far as I'm concerned right now, if 
AC is presenting its own version, both my version and AC version will end 
up as parallel proposals on next meeting and I will not be offering any 
input into their version (however this does not necesserily means I would 
not use AC proposal to revise my own). And yes, I'm aware that if two 
proposals are presented,this probably means my proposal will fail and AC 
will pass its own.

> I hope this can clear up this standing fight between William and the AC.
> Much more would be accomplished through cooperation and a recognition that
> you are working towards the same purpose from different angles.
>
> 
> 
> --On Wednesday, May 21, 2003 9:25 -0400 "Sweeting, John" 
> <John.Sweeting at teleglobe.com> wrote:
> 
> > "After last proposal despite general support for it from those present on
> > the meeting, the AC decided to abandon it"....this is simply not true.
> >
> > There is a small group of AC members working on this proposal.
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: william at elan.net [mailto:william at elan.net]
> > Sent: Wednesday, May 21, 2003 4:59 AM
> > To: Ian Baker
> > Cc: ppml at arin.net
> > Subject: Re: [ppml] Access to Bulk WHOIS data - a possible proposal?
> >
> >
> > How long is not an simple answer...
> >
> > After last proposal despite general support for it from those present on
> > the meeting, the AC decided to abandon it. In my view this was just
> > completely unprecidented for proposal where main ideas are totolly
> > supported by everybody (37:0 for) and issues being raised were only
> > to clarify how proposal changes current policies, and for example even
> > the network abuse proposal which everyone felt is completely ridiculous
> > in  the current form was not abandoned and in that case some thought its
> > just  completely unnecessary and nothing should be done there. So I'm
> > sure  reasons for abandoing whois aup proposals had nothing to do with
> > the  proposal itself or reaction to it on the meeting.
> >
> > And couple weeks ago, I've promised to send appeal letter to get AC
> > decision reversed, but got busy with other work and did not do it. I'll
> > now work on  it and will actually send two letters, one to AC to
> > reconsider abandoing  proposal and returning it for discussion or
> > recomending approval of new  version and one letter to BoT to reject AC
> > recomendation to abandon  proposal (in case AC decides not to respond to
> > my letter). I do not know  how much that will change, AC is not likely to
> > admit it made decisions  based not on the merit of the case, but its
> > possible BoT might ignore AC  considering the situation. In either case
> > and even if both AC and BoT do  not respond (which they do not have to
> > considering there is no official  appeal process), the new version of
> > proposal will be presented on next  meeting (matters not if its called
> > new version or new proposal). In theory  its possible that AC will see it
> > my way, reverse its decision, review  current version and agree that I
> > made necessary changes based on the  feedback received and send new
> > version for approval by BoT - in this case  the proposal can be approved
> > and implemented before next meeting having  gone through one already, but
> > this is probably a dream and current AC is  unlikely to make such a
> > decision.
> >
> > But I'v learned my lesson, after presenting proposal on next meeting,
> > I'll  not let the pool be taken then only on the issue and will directly
> > ask  about current version and if people have comments and suggestions
> > will  modify proposal in real-time on my notebook as I'v seen others do
> > and my  feeling is that people in the meeting will approve it and then
> > there is  some chance it'll be approved by BoT by end of the year.
> >
> > So realisticly you're probably looking at year 2004 when you'll see this
> > implimented. As I said, in theory its possible to get it done a lot sooner
> > (even within one-two months...) and in my view there is no good arguments
> > no to, but its probably not going to happen.
> >
> > On Wed, 21 May 2003, Ian Baker wrote:
> >
> >> William,
> >>     Yep - that matches exactly what I'm asking for.
> >>
> >> Any idea on how long this sort of procedure takes? I assume that I'd have
> > to
> >> reapply in writing, after the rejection of the first request? (As I said
> >> - I'm a newbie here ;o)
> >
> >> Personally, I'm only looking at something like a monthly or tri-monthly
> >> update - it's the accuracy that I'm really worried about, as the
> > granularity
> >> on a general search doesn't appear to be too hot. I'll only know for sure
> >> when comparing with the old method (based on the principle used by GeoIP,
> >> which uses the two most significant bytes of an IPv4 address and is
> >> hideously inaccurate for RIPE addresses)
> >>
> >> Regards,
> >>
> >> Ian
> >>
> >> ----- Original Message -----
> >> From: <william at elan.net>
> >> To: "Ian Baker" <ibaker at codecutters.org>
> >> Cc: <ppml at arin.net>
> >> Sent: Wednesday, May 21, 2003 8:07 AM
> >> Subject: Re: [ppml] Access to Bulk WHOIS data - a possible proposal?
> >>
> >>
> >> I have been advocating direct access to bulk whois for a while and I also
> >> represent company (or rather non-profit public-service project by the
> >> company) that would really benefit from being able current whois data
> >> at least once/day plus to that I'm begging a work on real-time
> >> specific bogons list based of ip space not present in whois (first part
> >> of this project will involve only old internic blocks, but then I'd like
> >> to move to all blocks where arin is making current registrations as
> >> well).
> >>
> >> A already made one proposal for last meeting:
> >> http://www.arin.net/policy/2003_9.html
> >> and newer version of this that will most likely go to next meeting is at
> >> http://www.elan.net/~william/arin_proposal_whois_aup-v2.htm
> >>
> >> If this does not meat your needs for access to bulk whois, I would very
> >> much like to hear from you as well as about any other comments people
> >> have regarding the proposal and its text. I'll incorporate all good
> >> suggestions to come up with acceptable proposal text by next meeting.
> >>
> >> On Wed, 21 May 2003, Ian Baker wrote:
> >>
> >> > Hi,
> >> >     After some e-mail conversation with Mike at the ARIN helpdesk, I am
> >> > thinking about putting-forward a proposal concerning access to bulk
> > WHOIS
> >> > data.
> >> >
> >> > However, being a newbie at this, I thought it better to open-up
> >> discussions
> >> > /before/ submitting such a proposal. If this is the wrong way of doing
> >> > things, or has already been rejected in the past (couldn't see anything
> >> > obvious in the archives) then please just let me know..
> >> >
> >> > Basically, I have written an IP to country/continent translator. It is
> >> > initially being used to provide a geographical visitor profile to my
> >> > web site, and as a filter mechanism of the anti-spam e-mail server
> >> > that is currently awaiting release.
> >> >
> >> > RIPE an APNIC data is processed using the bulk databases, taking around
> > 3
> >> > minutes, whereas the ARIN portion means sitting on the WHOIS throttling
> >> > limit for a continuous 2 to 7 days. The reason being, I'm a private
> >> > individual.
> >> >
> >> > Apparently the rules are such that bulk WHOIS data is only available to
> >> > corporations, and not individuals.
> >> >
> >> > I can understand the reasoning behind such a rule - an individual
> >> > spammer/cracker would be pretty difficult to track-down in the event of
> > an
> >> > abuse of access - but I'm not convinced that this should be an
> > /absolute/
> >> > rule. My reasoning is thus:
> >> >
> >> > 1. The rule does not make a distinction between "white-hat" and
> >> "black-hat"
> >> > activity - a corporation that later goes on to, or is acquired by an
> >> > organization that, employs undesirable practices (e.g. spamming) may be
> >> > permitted access, while a private individual is not.
> >> >
> >> > 2. Much of the data is publicly available, if one is willing to wait
> > long
> >> > enough
> >> >
> >> > 3. The data provided by a general WHOIS search is less accurate, as -
> > from
> >> a
> >> > sample of the run thus far - large blocks are allocated to individual
> >> > organizations with no real way of determining whether smaller blocks
> > have
> >> > been sub-allocated to different organizations and countries. Which
> > greatly
> >> > reduces the accuracy of the data sampled.
> >> >
> >> > 4. The majority of spamming data would appear to originate from trawls
> > of
> >> > Usenet, the Web, and SMTP servers.
> >> >
> >> > 5. Depending upon what checks are made, there may be nothing to stop an
> >> > individual from falsely claiming to represent an organization (e.g.
> > Chief
> >> > Fan Sanitation Engineer for ImadeThisUp Inc., or - if checks are in
> >> place -
> >> > simply using their employer's name without their knowledge). This
> >> > allows
> >> the
> >> > possibility of "black-hat" individuals gaining access to the data,
> >> > while still inhibiting access by those of a more honest nature.
> >> >
> >> > My conclusion is therefore that the ban on private access does not
> >> > particularly aid the development of the Internet as a whole, while it
> > most
> >> > definitely inhibits certain aspects.
> >> >
> >> > My proposal is, therefore, to remove the ban on private individuals
> > having
> >> > access to bulk WHOIS data and decide the issue purely on merit.
> >> >
> >> > Now - what have I missed? ;o)
> >> >
> >> > Regards,
> >> >
> >> > Ian Baker
> >> > Webmaster, codecutters.org &
> >> > EMEA Support Manager, OpenConnect Systems Ltd.
> >> >
> >>