Thick whois

[Patrick Vande Walle <patrick@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

I do take note of and welcome the comments made by CEO Paul Twomey during the 
Public Forum in Sydney. 

Extract: "ICANN's contracts, of course, cannot compel a party to break the law 
in their own jurisdiction, and we have actually, as you've pointed out, made an 
accommodation in dot tel for conflict of laws, and the -- I think in the draft 
contract that we're preparing for new gTLDs, the concern you raised has I think 
been recognized and I think we're probably going to follow that dot tel -- 
general dot tel approach."

(from 
http://syd.icann.org/files/meetings/sydney2009/transcript-public-forum-25jun09-en.txt)
 

It would indeed be a giant step forward to adopt the Telnic model for all new 
GTLDs, regardless of which jurisdiction they are under. This would allow to 
address the legitimate concerns of both the individuals seeking more privacy 
and those of LEA and similar that need to access the full data. 


On the thick/thin WHOIS report at 
http://www.icann.org/en/topics/new-gtlds/thick-thin-whois-30may09-en.pdf

On a similar note, and while this is slightly out of topic for the DAG itself, 
the report above mentions that: "It is important to note that, regardless of 
the thin or thick nature of registry Whois output for any registration, the 
sponsoring registrar is always required to display a "thick" set of contact 
data for all registrations it sponsors"

It should be logical to adapt the RAA to harmonize the WHOIS requirements for 
registrars to match those of registries. It would make little sense to protect 
the privacy of individuals at the registry level if full data is displayed by 
the registrar WHOIS anyway. We need to be consistent.

Best regards,

Patrick Vande Walle
ALAC member, speaking in personal capacity