RE: [gnso-thickwhois-dt] weekly status report

["Drazek, Keith" <kdrazek@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Tim raises an important point, including the question of whether registries or 
registrars are authoritative for Whois data.

I have concerns about a registry being authoritative for Whois data when it has 
no direct connection to the registrant. As discussed on our last call, the 
registry receives Whois data from the Registrar, not from the registrant. As 
such, the registry has no way of independently confirming/verifying/validating 
that the data is accurate. I think this distinction becomes more of an issue if 
there’s a future requirement for validation or verification of registrant Whois 
data, as requested by the GAC.

Ultimately, having a Thick Whois database at the registry level only 
centralizes the data…it doesn’t make it any more accurate, validated, verified, 
etc. since registries simply accept what is submitted by the registrars.

I understand that some of the existing thick registries may already be 
authoritative for their TLD’s Whois data, so perhaps we can benefit from their 
experience.

This issue may or may not fit into the draft charter, but it’s probably worth 
discussing further on our next call.

Thanks, Keith



Keith Drazek
Director of Policy
kdrazek@xxxxxxxxxxxx

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

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

[Verisign™]



From: owner-gnso-thickwhois-dt@xxxxxxxxx 
[mailto:owner-gnso-thickwhois-dt@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Tim Ruiz
Sent: Monday, September 24, 2012 12:27 PM
To: Mike O'Connor; Gnso-thickwhois-dt@xxxxxxxxx PDP DT
Subject: RE: [gnso-thickwhois-dt] weekly status report

Thanks Mikey,

Sorry I haven't been able to make the calls, one thing or another has come up. 
I think the current draft and changes look good but I do have one 
comment/concern.

It seems to assumes if all regitries are thick that registrars will still be 
required to maintain a set of WHOIS data themselves. However, if the registries 
are all thick and authoritative for WHOIS data then I see no reason why a 
registrar should continue to be required to maintain a duplicate set of the 
data, especially since it will also be escrowed by the registry. I would think 
a number of registrars would find it useful and cost effective to simply use a 
registry's authoritative data instead of trying to maintain it themselves. And 
I can easily see an effort by registrars to change the RAA and/or policies to 
reflect that.
So I don't think the PDP group should assume that both registrars and 
registries will continue to maintain the data. It may be good to note that 
possibility. Or alternatively, that may be a question they want to consider. I 
don't think it would necessarily be out of scope since it is tightly associated 
with whether all registries are thick or not, but others may have a different 
opinion.
Best,
Tim

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: [gnso-thickwhois-dt] weekly status report
From: "Mike O'Connor" <mike@xxxxxxxxxx<mailto:mike@xxxxxxxxxx>>
Date: Sat, September 22, 2012 10:03 am
To: "Gnso-thickwhois-dt@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:Gnso-thickwhois-dt@xxxxxxxxx> PDP DT"
<Gnso-thickwhois-dt@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:Gnso-thickwhois-dt@xxxxxxxxx>>

hi all,

here's the status report for this week. i *think* we're wringing out the last 
issues in the draft. so this would be a good time to take a look at the latest 
version. what seems to be working well is to run your ideas through the list so 
then we can work through them on the call. here's a link to the draft i pushed 
out after the last call.

http://forum.icann.org/lists/gnso-thickwhois-dt/doc3QzSkLIUIQ.doc

and here's the status report. i'm hoping we can get to a draft we can push out 
for a consensus call by the end of the meeting on Thursday.

thanks,

mikey

________________________________


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