[bc-gnso] RE: .COM Renewal Comments

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

Mike's response to my suggestion to use the word "provide" instead of "have" 
has caused me to rethink the issue.  Maybe "support direct access to" would be 
a good middle ground - one that doesn't put the Corporate/Brand Registries in 
the difficult position Mike described.

Jim

From: owner-bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of 
Elisa Cooper
Sent: Monday, May 14, 2012 4:10 PM
To: 'Bc GNSO list ' (bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx)
Subject: [bc-gnso] RE: .COM Renewal Comments

With comments (in blue) from Mike Palage incorporated:

The BC supports VeriSign's continued operation of the .COM Registry.

However, we strongly urge ICANN to take this opportunity to require the 
maintenance of Thick Whois by VeriSign for the .COM Registry.

We believe that requiring all Registries to provide direct access to Thick 
Whois is an important first step in improving Whois.

The BC has previously stated the importance of timely, unrestricted, and public 
access to complete and accurate Whois information. While the BC recognizes that 
Thick Whois does not directly improve accuracy, it does contribute to 
addressing the need for timely, unrestricted and public access of Whois 
information.

The BC expects that other ongoing ICANN projects will improve Whois accuracy 
and responses by privacy/proxy services to relay/reveal requests. In 
particular, we expect improvements to result from:


-          current negotiations on the Registrar Accreditation Agreement (RAA);

-          implementation of SAC 051 recommendations 
(http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/sac-051-draft-roadmap-18feb12-en.htm)
 ; and

-          policy development indicated by results of five pending Whois 
studies (http://gnso.icann.org/issues/whois/studies).

Rapporteur for this Discussion Draft: Elisa Cooper


Best,
Elisa

Elisa Cooper
Director of Product Marketing
MarkMonitor

208 389-5779 PH
From: Elisa Cooper
Sent: Monday, May 14, 2012 10:17 AM
To: 'Bc GNSO list ' (bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx>)
Subject: RE: .COM Renewal Comments

With minor updates highlighted in blue from Marilyn Cade:

The BC supports VeriSign's continued operation of the .COM Registry.

However, we strongly urge ICANN to take this opportunity to require the 
maintenance of Thick Whois by VeriSign for the .COM Registry.

We believe that requiring all Registries to comply with Thick Whois is an 
important first step in improving Whois.

The BC has previously stated the importance of timely, unrestricted, and public 
access to complete and accurate Whois information. While the BC recognizes that 
Thick Whois does not directly improve accuracy, it does contribute to 
addressing the need for timely, unrestricted and public access of Whois 
information.

The BC expects that other ongoing ICANN projects will improve Whois accuracy 
and responses by privacy/proxy services to relay/reveal requests. In 
particular, we expect improvements to result from:


-          current negotiations on the Registrar Accreditation Agreement (RAA);

-          implementation of SAC 051 recommendations 
(http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/sac-051-draft-roadmap-18feb12-en.htm)
 ; and

-          policy development indicated by results of five pending Whois 
studies (http://gnso.icann.org/issues/whois/studies).

Rapporteur for this Discussion Draft: Elisa Cooper

Best,
Elisa

Elisa Cooper
Director of Product Marketing
MarkMonitor

208 389-5779 PH
From: Elisa Cooper
Sent: Sunday, May 13, 2012 8:23 PM
To: 'Bc GNSO list ' (bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx>)
Subject: .COM Renewal Comments

BC Members,

Per the Member's Call last Friday, please find below brief comments regarding 
the renewal of the .COM contract:

The BC supports VeriSign's continued operation of the .COM Registry.

However, we strongly urge ICANN to take this opportunity to require the 
maintenance of Thick Whois by VeriSign for the .COM Registry.

We believe that requiring all Registries to comply with Thick Whois is an 
important first step in improving Whois.

The BC has previously stated the importance of timely, unrestricted, and public 
access to complete and accurate Whois information. While the BC recognizes that 
Thick Whois does not improve accuracy, it does address the requirements for 
timely, unrestricted and public access of Whois information.

The BC expects that other ongoing ICANN projects will improve Whois accuracy 
and responses by privacy/proxy services to relay / reveal requests.  In 
particular, we expect improvements to result from:


-          current negotiations on the Registrar Accreditation Agreement (RAA);

-          implementation of SAC 051 recommendations 
(link<http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/sac-051-draft-roadmap-18feb12-en.htm>);
 and

-          policy development indicated by results of five pending Whois 
studies (link<%20http:/gnso.icann.org/issues/whois/studies%20>).

Rapporteur for this Discussion Draft: Elisa Cooper

These comments are due Thursday, May 17th.

The comments are in line with our stated position, however, please let me know 
if you have any additions, or edits as soon as possible.

Best,
Elisa

Elisa Cooper
Director of Product Marketing
MarkMonitor

208 389 5779 PH