Re: [bc-gnso] FOR REVIEW BY 2-AUG: BC comments on Thick Whois PDP Initial Report

["Smith, Bill" <bill.smith@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Same with PayPal.

On Aug 2, 2013, at 9:02 AM, Andy Abrams 
<abrams@xxxxxxxxxx<mailto:abrams@xxxxxxxxxx>> wrote:

Thanks to Elisa and Steve for this draft.  Google supports this document as 
well as Marie's additional bullet point.

Best,

Andy



On Mon, Jul 29, 2013 at 7:09 PM, Ron Andruff 
<randruff@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:randruff@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>> wrote:
RNA supports Marie’s important additions and the rest of the document as is.

Thank you,

RA

Ron Andruff
RNA Partners
www.rnapartners.com<http://www.rnapartners.com/>

From: owner-bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:owner-bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx> 
[mailto:owner-bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:owner-bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx>] On Behalf Of 
Marie Pattullo

Sent: Monday, July 29, 2013 10:30
To: bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx>
Subject: FW: [bc-gnso] FOR REVIEW BY 2-AUG: BC comments on Thick Whois PDP 
Initial Report


Thanks to Elisa & Steve; AIM fully supports a move towards thick WHOIS.

On page 2, can we please add one bullet:

Requiring a ‘thick’ WHOIS would:

•              improve response consistency,

•              improve stability,

•              improve access to WHOIS data, and

•              provide a more level playing field for competition between 
Registries.

•              enhance consumer/user protection

Rationale: we’re supposed to be ensuring that the DN system works for the 
benefit of users – not just registrars/registries. Consumers should have the 
right to know to whom they are giving their data, including credit card details.

Many thanks for considering the above,

Marie


From: owner-bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:owner-bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx> 
[mailto:owner-bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Laura Covington
Sent: dimanche 28 juillet 2013 18:22
To: Steve DelBianco
Cc: bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx> list
Subject: Re: [bc-gnso] FOR REVIEW BY 2-AUG: BC comments on Thick Whois PDP 
Initial Report

Looks good to us.  Thanks, Elisa.

Sent from my iPhone

On Jul 27, 2013, at 9:43 AM, "Steve DelBianco" 
<sdelbianco@xxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:sdelbianco@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>> wrote:
As we've discussed before, there's a PDP (Policy Development Process) underway 
to consider requiring thick Whois for all gTLD registries — including legacy 
TLDs such as com and net.

The Working Group published its Initial Report 
(here<http://gnso.icann.org/en/issues/whois/thick-initial-21jun13-en.pdf%20>), 
concluding there are more benefits than disadvantages to requiring thick Whois 
for all gTLD registries. The Working Group recommends that thick Whois services 
should "become a requirement for all gTLD registries, both existing and future."

Public comment page is 
here<http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/thick-whois-initial-21jun13-en.htm>.

Elisa Cooper prepared the attached draft of BC comments.

The reply comment period closes 4-Aug-2013, so please Reply All before 2-Aug 
with edits or questions.

And thanks to Elisa for preparing this draft.

--
Steve DelBianco
Vice chair for policy coordination
Business Constituency

<BC Comments - Thick Whois PDP WG Initial Report [Draft v1].doc>



--
Andy Abrams | Trademark Counsel
Google | 1600 Amphitheatre Parkway, Mountain View, CA 94043
(650) 669-8752<https://www.google.com/voice#phones>