RE: [bc-gnso] Clarification
- To: "Michael D. Palage" <michael@xxxxxxxxxx>, "''Bc GNSO list ''" <bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: RE: [bc-gnso] Clarification
- From: "Baskin, James F \(Jim\)" <james.f.baskin@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 14 May 2012 14:18:17 -0400
How about "provide direct access to" ?
From: owner-bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of
Michael D. Palage
Sent: Monday, May 14, 2012 2:01 PM
To: ''Bc GNSO list ''
Subject: [bc-gnso] Clarification
I am a little confused by the wording "[w]e believe that requiring all
Registries to comply with Thick Whois." How does one "comply" with thick
whois? Registries such as .NAME, .TEL and now .CAT "operate" their registry by
collecting Thick whois data, but comply with national privacy laws in how they
provide access to that data set. Having worked with a large number of new gTLD
applicants with a variety of business models, I think the BC needs to be a
little more careful in how we word our statements so they scale in a future
world of thousands of new gTLDs.
Therefore, I would recommend that we change the phrase "comply with" to "have
direct access to."