ICANN ICANN Email List Archives


<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

Re: [gnso-thickwhois-dt] Comments on the Thick Whois PDP Draft Charter

  • To: Marika Konings <marika.konings@xxxxxxxxx>
  • Subject: Re: [gnso-thickwhois-dt] Comments on the Thick Whois PDP Draft Charter
  • From: "Mike O'Connor" <mike@xxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Wed, 12 Sep 2012 07:05:15 -0500

ah.  Marika beat me to it -- i was going to suggest the same thing.  let's do 
that -- it's always easier to prune thing back than create new material.


On Sep 12, 2012, at 1:56 AM, Marika Konings <marika.konings@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> In response to comment 2, the Final Issue Report contains further details on 
> each of these items, hence the 'as detailed in the Final Issue Report' 
> reference. However, if the DT feels it would be helpful to have this detail 
> included in the charter itself, I'm happy to update it by importing the 
> descriptions in the Issue Report which the DT can then further modify as 
> desired.
> With best regards,
> Marika
> From: <Drazek>, Keith <kdrazek@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Date: Wednesday 12 September 2012 01:10
> To: "Gnso-thickwhois-dt@xxxxxxxxx" <Gnso-thickwhois-dt@xxxxxxxxx>
> Subject: [gnso-thickwhois-dt] Comments on the Thick Whois PDP Draft Charter 
> Hi everyone,
> Thanks to Marika for the great work kicking off the draft charter.
> A few suggested edits:
> 1. I recommend amending the introductory sentence in Section 2, Mission & 
> Scope from, “The PDP Working Group is tasked to provide the GNSO Council with 
> a recommendation(s) on whether there should be a requirement for ‘thick’ 
> Whois for all gTLD Registries” to “The PDP Working Group is tasked to provide 
> the GNSO Council with a recommendation(s) on the consistent use of ‘thick’ 
> Whois by all gTLD Registries.”  The original wording appears to be focused on 
> com and net only, where “the consistent use of thick Whois for all gTLD 
> registries” allows for any future developments or modifications affecting all 
> implementers of thick Whois and ensures that users of thick Whois can rely on 
> a standard or consistent experience. In other words, just requiring the use 
> of ‘thick Whois’ is insufficient; the WG should be making a recommendation 
> concerning the consistent use of thick Whois among all registry operators.  
> This also ensures the PDP WG’s eventual policy recommendation addresses the 
> consistent use of thick Whois for all registries as a whole, and does not 
> inappropriately single out one registry operator. Note that “consistent use” 
> doesn’t preclude variations in the model as required by sponsored TLDs, etc.
> 2. The list of bulleted items looks very comprehensive, but I recommend the 
> Drafting Team spend some time adding specificity to the list. The more 
> specific we are in the charter, the better off we’ll be in determining 
> whether the WG is successful in adequately addressing the issues, and knowing 
> when each item is completed. I suggest that at least a sentence be added to 
> each item in the list to provide a fuller explanation to make the charter 
> clearer.  Ideally, it would be helpful for each item to also have a list of 
> questions to be answered; this would provide a more precise guide for the 
> work to be done and would make it easier to measure completion.  The list 
> itself is good, but each bullet should be expanded upon.
> Here’s an example:
> For the bullet: “Impact on privacy and data protection, including 
> consideration of possible cross border transfers of registrant data” it will 
> be important that the WG answer questions like these:
> ·         Would registries and/or registrars be required to obtain consents 
> from new and existing registrants before processing transfers?
> ·         Would registries and/or registrars be required to abide by 
> different privacy and data protection laws in different jurisdictions?
> ·         How substantial are the compliance issues for registries and/or 
> registrars with regard to varying privacy and data protection laws?
> Note that these questions are applicable to both existing registries and new 
> registries because all registries will have to deal with transfers of domains 
> and transfers of data”
> I look forward to discussing further on Thursday and welcome any comments.
> Thanks and regards,
> Keith
> <image001.gif>
> Keith Drazek
> Director of Policy
> kdrazek@xxxxxxxxxxxx
> m: +1-571-377-9182
> 21345 Ridgetop Circle Dulles, VA 20166
> VerisignInc.com
> <image002.gif>
> <image001.gif><image002.gif>

- - - - - - - - -
phone   651-647-6109  
fax             866-280-2356  
web     http://www.haven2.com
handle  OConnorStP (ID for public places like Twitter, Facebook, Google, etc.)

<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Cookies Policy