RE: [bc-gnso] Council call today

["Baskin, James F (Jim)" <james.f.baskin@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Marilyn,
This is a great start. There are likely a few more aspects that would need to 
be covered - like registration info changes without a registrant change - but 
this is going in the right direction.
Jim

-----Original Message-----
From: Marilyn Cade [marilynscade@xxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:marilynscade@xxxxxxxxxxx>]
Sent: Thursday, February 16, 2012 01:21 PM Eastern Standard Time
To: John Berard; Bill Smith
Cc: Lynn Goodendorf; owner-bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx; Steve Delbianco; bc - GNSO list
Subject: RE: [bc-gnso] Council call today

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 accessing
ISO 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<mailto:bill.smith@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>>
Date: Thu, February 16, 2012 8:30 am
To: Marilyn Cade <marilynscade@xxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:marilynscade@xxxxxxxxxxx>>
Cc: Lynn Goodendorf 
<lynn@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:lynn@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>>,
"<owner-bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:owner-bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx>>" 
<owner-bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:owner-bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx>>, Steve
Delbianco <sdelbianco@xxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:sdelbianco@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>>, bc - 
GNSO list
<bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx<mailto: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><mailto:bill.smith@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>;
>  
> owner-bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:owner-bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx><mailto:owner-bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx>;
>  
> sdelbianco@xxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:sdelbianco@xxxxxxxxxxxxx><mailto:sdelbianco@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> CC: bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx><mailto:bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx>
> From: 
> lynn@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto: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>><mailto:bill.smith@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>>
> Sender: 
> owner-bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx<mailto: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>><mailto:sdelbianco@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>>
> Cc: bc - GNSO 
> list<bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx<mailto: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><mailto:sdelbianco@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>>
> Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2012 09:03:22 -0500
> To: Zahid Jamil 
> <zahid@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:zahid@xxxxxxxxx>><mailto:zahid@xxxxxxxxx><mailto:zahid@xxxxxxxxx>>,
>  John Berard 
> <john@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:john@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>><mailto:john@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx><mailto:john@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>>
> Cc: 
> <bc-private@xxxxxxxxx<mailto: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
>
>
>