<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
RE: [bc-gnso] Council call today
- To: "Smith, Bill" <bill.smith@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "Marilyn Cade" <marilynscade@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: RE: [bc-gnso] Council call today
- From: <john@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2012 09:37:25 -0700
<html><body><span style="font-family:Verdana; color:#000000;
font-size:10pt;"><div>Bill,</div><div><br></div><div>Here is the pertinent line
from the final report:</div><div><br></div><div><i>From a technical
perspective, a thick Whois model provides a central repository for a given
registry. Historically, centralized databases are operated under a single
administrator that sets conventions and standards for submission and display,
archival/restoration and security have proven easier to
manage.</i></div><div><i><br></i></div><div>Not so much a call but a
possibility. The report notes that some comments, like that coming from
the IPC, did call for a centralized
database.</div><div><br></div><div>Berard<br></div><div><br></div><div><br></div>
<blockquote id="replyBlockquote" webmail="1" style="border-left: 2px solid
blue; margin-left: 8px; padding-left: 8px; font-size:10pt; color:black;
font-family:verdana;">
<div id="wmQuoteWrapper">
-------- Original Message --------<br>
Subject: Re: [bc-gnso] Council call today<br>
From: "Smith, Bill" <<a
href="mailto:bill.smith@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx";>bill.smith@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx</a>><br>
Date: Thu, February 16, 2012 8:30 am<br>
To: Marilyn Cade <<a
href="mailto:marilynscade@xxxxxxxxxxx";>marilynscade@xxxxxxxxxxx</a>><br>
Cc: Lynn Goodendorf <<a
href="mailto:lynn@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx";>lynn@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx</a>>,
<br>
"<<a href="mailto:owner-bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx";>owner-bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx</a>>"
<<a href="mailto:owner-bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx";>owner-bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx</a>>,
Steve<br>
Delbianco <<a
href="mailto:sdelbianco@xxxxxxxxxxxxx";>sdelbianco@xxxxxxxxxxxxx</a>>,
bc - GNSO list<br>
<<a href="mailto:bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx";>bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx</a>><br>
<br>
<br>
To be clear, I am not questioning the BC position. Rather, I was pointing out
that the characterization of the WHOIS RT recommendation as a call for a
centralized database was perhaps incorrect.<br>
<br>
On Feb 16, 2012, at 8:19 AM, Marilyn Cade wrote:<br>
<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
Marilyn Cade<br>
<br>
<br>
> Subject: Re: [bc-gnso] Council call today<br>
> To: <a
href="mailto:bill.smith@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx";>bill.smith@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx</a><<a
href="mailto:bill.smith@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx";>mailto:bill.smith@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx</a>>;
<a href="mailto:owner-bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx";>owner-bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx</a><<a
href="mailto:owner-bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx";>mailto:owner-bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx</a>>;
<a href="mailto:sdelbianco@xxxxxxxxxxxxx";>sdelbianco@xxxxxxxxxxxxx</a><<a
href="mailto:sdelbianco@xxxxxxxxxxxxx";>mailto:sdelbianco@xxxxxxxxxxxxx</a>><br>
> CC: <a href="mailto:bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx";>bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx</a><<a
href="mailto:bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx";>mailto:bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx</a>><br>
> From: <a
href="mailto:lynn@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx";>lynn@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx</a><<a
href="mailto:lynn@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx";>mailto:lynn@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx</a>><br>
> Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2012 16:15:31 +0000<br>
><br>
><br>
> Yes Bill- our RT made a deliberate distinction between a centralized web
interface rather than a database.<br>
> We believe this approach is feasible and would provide consumers with a
single URL for whois lookups.<br>
> Lynn<br>
><br>
> Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T<br>
><br>
> -----Original Message-----<br>
> From: "Smith, Bill" <<a
href="mailto:bill.smith@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx";>bill.smith@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx</a>><<a
href="mailto:bill.smith@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx";>mailto:bill.smith@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx</a>>><br>
> Sender: <a
href="mailto:owner-bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx";>owner-bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx</a><<a
href="mailto:owner-bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx";>mailto:owner-bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx</a>><br>
> Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2012 16:07:06<br>
> To: Steve DelBianco<<a
href="mailto:sdelbianco@xxxxxxxxxxxxx";>sdelbianco@xxxxxxxxxxxxx</a>><<a
href="mailto:sdelbianco@xxxxxxxxxxxxx";>mailto:sdelbianco@xxxxxxxxxxxxx</a>>><br>
> Cc: bc - GNSO list<<a
href="mailto:bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx";>bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx</a>><<a
href="mailto:bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx";>mailto:bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx</a>>><br>
> Subject: Re: [bc-gnso] Council call today<br>
><br>
><br>
> A clarification.<br>
><br>
> 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.<br>
><br>
> The data could reside anywhere.<br>
><br>
> If our report says otherwise, or projects that perception, please let us
know.<br>
><br>
> On Feb 16, 2012, at 6:30 AM, Steve DelBianco wrote:<br>
><br>
> Resending this to BC List (since I was rejected when sending to
BC-Private)<br>
><br>
> From: Steve DelBianco <<a
href="mailto:sdelbianco@xxxxxxxxxxxxx";>sdelbianco@xxxxxxxxxxxxx</a>><<a
href="mailto:sdelbianco@xxxxxxxxxxxxx";>mailto:sdelbianco@xxxxxxxxxxxxx</a>><<a
href="mailto:sdelbianco@xxxxxxxxxxxxx";>mailto:sdelbianco@xxxxxxxxxxxxx</a>>><br>
> Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2012 09:03:22 -0500<br>
> To: Zahid Jamil <<a
href="mailto:zahid@xxxxxxxxx";>zahid@xxxxxxxxx</a>><<a
href="mailto:zahid@xxxxxxxxx";>mailto:zahid@xxxxxxxxx</a>><<a
href="mailto:zahid@xxxxxxxxx";>mailto:zahid@xxxxxxxxx</a>>>, John Berard
<<a
href="mailto:john@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx";>john@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx</a>><<a
href="mailto:john@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx";>mailto:john@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx</a>><<a
href="mailto:john@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx";>mailto:john@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx</a>>><br>
> Cc: <<a
href="mailto:bc-private@xxxxxxxxx";>bc-private@xxxxxxxxx</a>><<a
href="mailto:bc-private@xxxxxxxxx";>mailto:bc-private@xxxxxxxxx</a>><<a
href="mailto:bc-private@xxxxxxxxx";>mailto:bc-private@xxxxxxxxx</a>>><br>
> Subject: Council call today<br>
><br>
> John & Zahid — just a follow-up on last week's member call, where we
discussed the motions you have today in Council.<br>
><br>
> Motion to start a PDP on Thick WHOIS:<br>
><br>
> This one is complicated.<br>
><br>
> 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.<br>
><br>
> 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.<br>
><br>
> 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.<br>
><br>
> John Berard was going to ask Stephane about deferring his PDP motion until
after the RAA amendments are done.<br>
><br>
> 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.<br>
><br>
><br>
> Motion for implementation of IRTP Recommendation 8:<br>
> Support. The BC had several members on the IRTP-B working group, and we
support implementation of the working group's recommendation.<br>
><br>
><br>
> Motion to send letter to Board asking to allow single-letter IDN gTLDs:<br>
> 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.<br>
><br>
><br>
> Hope that's helpful. Let me know if there's any other info I can provide
for today's call.<br>
><br>
> --<br>
> Steve DelBianco<br>
> Vice chair for policy coordination<br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
<br>
<br>
</div>
</blockquote></span></body></html>
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|