[DBWG] Whois output (was: [Community-Discuss] Questions)

Ronald F. Guilmette rfg at tristatelogic.com
Sat Dec 26 00:45:11 UTC 2020

In message < at elandnews.com>,
"S. Moonesamy" <sm+af at afrinic.net> wrote:

rfg>Another problem is that unlike other object types in the WHOIS data
rfg>base, the full history of person: objects is simply not available.
rfg>No rationale and no explanation for this has been provided, even though
rfg>I have asked about it several times now. Neither has it ever been
rfg>clear on whose authority the decision was made to render the historical
rfg>versions of person: objects inaccessible.


>The explanation about the historical information for "person"

>objects, which was provided in 2019, was that it was done for privacy reasons.


Who provided that explanation? Where was it provided? And who made the
actual decision that the mere utterance of that one apparently magical
word "privacy" was either a proper or an adequate basis for AFRINIC to
hide and effectively "disappear" all historical WHOIS records?

Was the decision reached as the end product of AFRINIC community input?
Or did the AFRINIC staff take it upon themselves to make this decision
unilaterally and without any community input?

If the latter, then I think that the community should be at least asked
before any important decision to deliberately hide information is reached.

Do you disagree?

>In 2016, there was a discussion about filtered "Whois output". It is

>unclear whether the historical versions of the "person" object were

>accessible before 2016. The message at


>refers to a decision which was taken upstream.

No, it doesn't. And what would "upstream" even mean in this context?

Anyway, if you actually read what is at the link you just provided, you
will see that the discussion there is only about the accesibility of
*deleted* data base objects. That is an issue and a problem also, but
it is separate from and different from the issue/problem that it is
currently not possible to obtain the *historical* versions of even those
person: records that are still in the data base, as of today.

Here is the list of three things that I need to have in order to complete
my investigations. In all three cases, it appears that AFRINIC staff have
unilaterally decided that all of these things should be "off limits" to
all "ousiders"... APNIC technical advisors excepted... even though *nobody*
has justified or even given any explanations for these unilateral staff

*) Full and unredacted "bulk" access to the *current* data base (for
well-vetted and well-qualified researchers who agree not to use
the data for marketing purposes)

*) Full and unredacted "bulk" access to *all* historical data base
records for *all* record types, including the critical person:
records that were manipulated by Ernest Byaruhanga and his criminal

*) Non-bulk (individual query) historical records even for previously
deleted data base objects.

I say again, I do not think that just waving around the word "privacy", as
if it were some sort of a magic wand, is either adequate or sufficient,
either as a basis for keeping any of these records secret *or*, just as
importantly, for staff to go around making decisions about these things
on their own and behind the backs of the community. Do they fear having
open and public debates on whether or not all of these current and
historical WHOIS records should be hidden and secret?


More information about the DBWG mailing list