<<<
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.
mikey
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
>>>
|