RE: [bc-gnso] Council call today

[Marilyn Cade <marilynscade@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

I understand that the WG may have made a distinction. However, the BC has 
supported thick WHOIS. It is helpful to have the clarification from the 
independent experts on that subject. 
Marilyn Cade


> Subject: Re: [bc-gnso] Council call today
> To: bill.smith@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx; owner-bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx; 
> sdelbianco@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> CC: bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx
> From: lynn@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2012 16:15:31 +0000
> 
> 
> 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
> 
> 
>