Re: [gnso-irtp-b-jun09] Updated recommendations overview

[Marika Konings <marika.konings@xxxxxxxxx>]

For everyone's information, this sentence was added following the WGs 
discussion of one of the comments of the RySG (see excerpt of public comment 
review tool hereunder). If everyone agrees with Paul's comments, it might be 
helpful to also clarify the WGs position in the public comment review tool.

With best regards,

Marika

30.


Requiring thick WHOIS could have as a potential side effect that registrant 
contact information is more readily available for individuals with nefarious 
intent to obtain access to the information as well.


RySG (see http://forum.icann.org/lists/irtp-b-initial-report/msg00016.html)


The question was raised whether the RySG was implying that thick WHOIS is a 
security risk and therefore all registries should switch to a thin WHOIS model? 
It was pointed out that just because thick WHOIS applies, it does not mean that 
all information is made publicly available. Some interpreted this comment to be 
more related to display and not collection of information. It was suggested 
that the recommendation could clarify that information should be collected, but 
not necessarily publicly displayed. Some also pointed out that in the new gTLD 
process there is a requirement for thick WHOIS.


§  Review whether recommendation needs to be clarified to note that information 
collected does not necessarily need to be publicly displayed.



On 12/01/11 17:54, "Diaz, Paul" 
<pdiaz@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:pdiaz@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>> wrote:

I have a question/concern about Recommendation #3, in particular the sentence 
that reads:

    It should be noted that this recommendation does not imply that     
additional information collected under a thick WHOIS model needs to be     
publicly displayed.

What is this supposed to mean?  Thick WHOIS Registry Operators display whatever 
contact information registrars have collected and passed through (under the 
terms of their Registry-Registrar Agreements).  Do we really imagine any RO 
parsing out Registrant email addresses so they don't publicly appear, but will 
somehow made available to registrars for IRTP purposes?  I think this is 
unrealistic, and recommend dropping this sentence from Recommendation #3.

The focus of our Recommendation should be on setting the stage for an Issues 
Report and/or PDP on thick WHOIS for all gTLD registries.  Let that future WG 
debate what data could or should be included in the publicly available WHOIS.  
It's inappropriate/out of scope for the IRTP B WG to color the debate with its 
opinion about whether all data should be presented.

Regards, P

________________________________________
From: 
owner-gnso-irtp-b-jun09@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:owner-gnso-irtp-b-jun09@xxxxxxxxx> 
[mailto:owner-gnso-irtp-b-jun09@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Marika Konings
Sent: Monday, January 10, 2011 4:29 AM
To: Gnso-irtp-b-jun09@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:Gnso-irtp-b-jun09@xxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [gnso-irtp-b-jun09] Updated recommendations overview

Dear All,

Please find attached the updated recommendations overview which incorporates 
the changes discussed at last week's meeting and suggestions posted on the 
mailing list.

With best regards,

Marika