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

[Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx>]

Hi,

How about going one step further in order to be explicit and have no 
discussions later about what the meaning of 'all' is.

I.e change

>  “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.

to something like:

 The PDP Working Group is tasked to provide the GNSO Council with a 
recommendation(s) regarding the consistent use of ‘thick’ Whois by all, both 
existing and future, gTLD Registries

avri



On 11 Sep 2012, at 19:10, Drazek, Keith wrote:

> 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>
>