Re: [bc-gnso] Council call today

["Smith, Bill" <bill.smith@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

I'm with Lynn.

The biggest issue isn't think or thin, it's accuracy and access - both of which 
are horrible. (my opinion)

On Feb 16, 2012, at 8:27 AM, 
<lynn@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:lynn@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>>
 <lynn@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:lynn@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>> 
wrote:

We found no policy basis for thin Whois. My conclusion as an independent expert 
is that all Whois records should be "thick".
Lynn

Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T
________________________________
From: Marilyn Cade <marilynscade@xxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:marilynscade@xxxxxxxxxxx>>
Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2012 11:19:43 -0500
To: Lynn 
Goodendorf<lynn@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:lynn@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>>;
 Bill Smith<bill.smith@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:bill.smith@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>>; 
<owner-bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:owner-bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx>>; Steve 
Delbianco<sdelbianco@xxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:sdelbianco@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>>
Cc: bc - GNSO list<bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx>>
Subject: RE: [bc-gnso] Council call today


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<mailto:bill.smith@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; 
> owner-bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:owner-bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx>; 
> sdelbianco@xxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:sdelbianco@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> CC: bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx>
> From: lynn@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto: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<mailto:bill.smith@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>>
> Sender: owner-bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:owner-bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx>
> Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2012 16:07:06
> To: Steve DelBianco<sdelbianco@xxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:sdelbianco@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>>
> Cc: bc - GNSO list<bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx<mailto: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><mailto:sdelbianco@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>>
> Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2012 09:03:22 -0500
> To: Zahid Jamil 
> <zahid@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:zahid@xxxxxxxxx><mailto:zahid@xxxxxxxxx>>, John 
> Berard 
> <john@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:john@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx><mailto:john@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>>
> Cc: 
> <bc-private@xxxxxxxxx<mailto: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
>
>
>