RE: [bc-gnso] Council call today

[Marilyn Cade <marilynscade@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

A centralized WHOIS database, operated by ICANN, and outsourced, could benefit 
business [and govt's and NGOs] tremendously.
NO names go live until verified payment received -- no future kiting and 
tasting opportunities supported by registries, registrars, and resellers
Standards for WHOIS 
Single cost for entry to registrant and single cost to anyone accessingISO 
certified
This is not a discussion on who gets access, or what is displayed -- but a 
discussion on benefits of standards, and a single validated database.
In  my view, high benefit to business users.
And, registrants like companies, can more easily look for cybersquatted names. 



From: john@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
To: bill.smith@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx; marilynscade@xxxxxxxxxxx
CC: lynn@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; owner-bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx; 
sdelbianco@xxxxxxxxxxxxx; bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [bc-gnso] Council call today
Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2012 09:37:25 -0700


Bill,
Here is the pertinent line from the final report:
>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.
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.
Berard





-------- Original Message --------

Subject: Re: [bc-gnso] Council call today

From: "Smith, Bill" <bill.smith@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>

Date: Thu, February 16, 2012 8:30 am

To: Marilyn Cade <marilynscade@xxxxxxxxxxx>

Cc: Lynn Goodendorf <lynn@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,       

"<owner-bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx>" <owner-bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx>,        Steve

Delbianco <sdelbianco@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>,        bc - GNSO list

<bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx>





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.



On Feb 16, 2012, at 8:19 AM, Marilyn Cade wrote:





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

>

>

>