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

["Ray Fassett" <ray@xxxxxxxxx>]

I agree with Steve that the WG should be left with flexibility but I also
see advantage to the WG by the DT formulating some questions (not an
exhaustive or exclusive list) for purposes of guidance and direction to the
WG.  For example,

 

Competition in registry services:

What competition, if any, exists today amongst registry operators with the
Whois registry service?

What impact, if any, could a recommendation on the consistent use of thick
Whois have on user choice of gTLD's?

What impact, if any, could a recommendation on the consistent use of thick
Whois have upon gTLD registry operator competition with ccTLD registry
operators?

What impact, if any, could a recommendation on the consistent use of thick
Whois have on competition between thin registries vs. thick registries?

What impact, if any, could a recommendation on the consistent use of thick
Whois have on ICANN's role to promote competition in registry services
wherever feasible and practical?

What impact, if any, could a recommendation on the consistent use of thick
Whois have on the GNSO being outwardly perceived as ICANN's competition
authority vs. policy body?

 

There will probably be disagreement amongst DT members that the above
questions are the "right" questions (and I reserve the right to disagree
with myself) but I think supports the point of why the exercise of
formulating such questions for each point, where common agreement can be
reached for some questions, would be of later assistance to the WG.

 

Ray

 

 

From: owner-gnso-thickwhois-dt@xxxxxxxxx
[mailto:owner-gnso-thickwhois-dt@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Metalitz, Steven
Sent: Wednesday, September 12, 2012 12:08 PM
To: 'Marika Konings'; Drazek, Keith; Gnso-thickwhois-dt@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [gnso-thickwhois-dt] Comments on the Thick Whois PDP Draft
Charter

 

Re Keith's second point below: 

 

If it is felt to be necessary to go beyond the "as detailed in the Final
issue Report" language, I support the suggestion to track the text of the
Final Issue Report, which in this case would be as follows:  

 

 

"Impact on privacy and data protection, including consideration of cross
border transfers of registrant data - how would 'thick' Whois affect privacy
and data protection, also taking into account the involvement of different
jurisdictions with different laws and legislation with regard to data
privacy. "

 

That would provide the working group with the flexibility it needs to
address this issue, rather than being given a laundry list of very specific
questions to answer - in the case of some of what Keith has drafted,  very
complex questions that in essence require the WG to reach legal conclusions.


 

Steve Metalitz  

 

 

From: owner-gnso-thickwhois-dt@xxxxxxxxx
[mailto:owner-gnso-thickwhois-dt@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Marika Konings
Sent: Wednesday, September 12, 2012 2:56 AM
To: Drazek, Keith; Gnso-thickwhois-dt@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [gnso-thickwhois-dt] Comments on the Thick Whois PDP Draft
Charter

 

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

 

 


Verisign


Keith Drazek
Director of Policy
kdrazek@xxxxxxxxxxxx

m: +1-571-377-9182
21345 Ridgetop Circle Dulles, VA 20166

 <http://www.verisigninc.com/> VerisignInc.com

VerisignT