Re: [bc-gnso] Council call today

[lynn@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]

Yes Bill- our RT made a deliberate distinction between a centralized web 
interface rather than a database.  
We believe this approach is feasible and would provide consumers with a single 
URL for whois lookups.
Lynn

Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T

-----Original Message-----
From: "Smith, Bill" <bill.smith@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sender: owner-bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx
Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2012 16:07:06 
To: Steve DelBianco<sdelbianco@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: bc - GNSO list<bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [bc-gnso] Council call today


A clarification.

I don't think the WHOIS RT recommendations include  "a call for centralized 
database of WHOIS data". If it does, it's an error. What we are recommending is 
that there be a centralized point of *access* to WHOIS data.

The data could reside anywhere.

If our report says otherwise, or projects that perception, please let us know.

On Feb 16, 2012, at 6:30 AM, Steve DelBianco wrote:

Resending this to BC List (since I was rejected when sending to BC-Private)

From: Steve DelBianco 
<sdelbianco@xxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:sdelbianco@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>>
Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2012 09:03:22 -0500
To: Zahid Jamil <zahid@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:zahid@xxxxxxxxx>>, John Berard 
<john@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:john@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>>
Cc: <bc-private@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:bc-private@xxxxxxxxx>>
Subject: Council call today

John & Zahid — just a follow-up on last week's member call, where we discussed 
the motions you have today in Council.

Motion to start a PDP on Thick WHOIS:

This one is complicated.

BC wants accessible and accurate WHOIS, and thick WHOIS is part of the 
solution. But another part of the solution is amending the RAA to require 
verification of WHOIS data.   And the WHOIS review Team draft report includes 
many recommendations on WHOIS, including a call for centralized database of 
WHOIS data.

We also understand that registrars are not willing to share their WHOIS data 
with a thick .com whois or a a central database — unless ICANN adopts a new 
"consensus policy" requiring data sharing.  And we know that it takes a PDP to 
create such a new consensus policy.

However, we don't want to do anything that removes pressure on the current 
process to amend the RAA.  And we are concerned that launching a new PDP could 
create an excuse for the RAA negotiators to avoid making any changes on WHOIS.

John Berard was going to ask Stephane about deferring his PDP motion until 
after the RAA amendments are done.

If John's outreach effort wasn't successful, I think the BC members would want 
you to ask for a deferral of the PDP motion, for reasons stated above.


Motion for implementation of IRTP Recommendation 8:
Support.  The BC had several members on the IRTP-B working group, and we 
support implementation of the working group's recommendation.


Motion to send letter to Board asking to allow single-letter IDN gTLDs:
Support.  The BC supports the expansion of gTLDs to IDN users, and wants TLDs 
to be able to use a single-character IDN if that's most appropriate for the 
linguistic community being served.


Hope that's helpful.  Let me know if there's any other info I can provide for 
today's call.

--
Steve DelBianco
Vice chair for policy coordination