<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
RE: [gnso-thickwhois-dt] weekly status report
- To: "Gnso-thickwhois-dt@xxxxxxxxx PDP DT" <Gnso-thickwhois-dt@xxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: RE: [gnso-thickwhois-dt] weekly status report
- From: "Drazek, Keith" <kdrazek@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 24 Sep 2012 17:12:31 +0000
Hi Volker,
Thanks for the insight. It sounds like there could be multiple models of Whois
Data authority, which seems appropriate.
Another question around the “authoritative” issue concerns privacy laws and
anticipated cross-border transfers of data.
For a TLD that has always had Thick Whois, the rules were established (and
presumably accepted by the registrants in their registration agreement with the
registrar) from their initial launch date. The registrants in those TLDs gave
their consent for the data transfer upon registration of their domain name(s).
However, transferring personal Whois data for 100+ million registrations from
scores of international jurisdictions to a single entity could raise additional
privacy concerns. The question of which entity in which jurisdiction has
“authority” over the Whois data may need to be considered by the WG and should
not necessarily be presumed to be the registry in every case, dependent upon
national laws and the range of service offerings across various registries.
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: Volker Greimann [mailto:vgreimann@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Monday, September 24, 2012 1:05 PM
To: Drazek, Keith
Cc: Gnso-thickwhois-dt@xxxxxxxxx PDP DT
Subject: Re: [gnso-thickwhois-dt] weekly status report
Hi Keith,
I see your point, but I do not believe it to be as much of an issue as you make
of it. The registry in any thick whois TLD is the central repository of all
whois data, regardly of where it was registered. The registrar is responsible
to provide the data to the registry. Verification can be assumed and performed
by either. In the new RAA, registrars will most likely assume some of the
responsibility, but the launch of .XXX has show this can also be performed on a
registry level. In fact, some ccTLDs such as .US also perform routine
validations on the registration requirements.
On the other hand, we have now seen cases where a "thick registry" has made
modifications to the registration based on court orders or other events, which
were not always notified to the registrar, i.e. left the registrar database out
of synch with the registrar database, yet these changes were authoritative as
far as the ownership of the domain is concerned. Whereas registrars must always
update the registry to effect a change of data in a thick TLD. In other words,
as the registry database is the last word on the data, it should be the
authoritative source.
Best,
Volker
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<mailto: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>
[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<mailto: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.)
--
Bei weiteren Fragen stehen wir Ihnen gerne zur Verfügung.
Mit freundlichen Grüßen,
Volker A. Greimann
- Rechtsabteilung -
Key-Systems GmbH
Im Oberen Werk 1
66386 St. Ingbert
Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901
Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851
Email: vgreimann@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:vgreimann@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Web: www.key-systems.net<http://www.key-systems.net> /
www.RRPproxy.net<http://www.RRPproxy.net>
www.domaindiscount24.com<http://www.domaindiscount24.com> /
www.BrandShelter.com<http://www.BrandShelter.com>
Folgen Sie uns bei Twitter oder werden Sie unser Fan bei Facebook:
www.key-systems.net/facebook<http://www.key-systems.net/facebook>
www.twitter.com/key_systems<http://www.twitter.com/key_systems>
Geschäftsführer: Alexander Siffrin
Handelsregister Nr.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken
Umsatzsteuer ID.: DE211006534
Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP
www.keydrive.lu<http://www.keydrive.lu>
Der Inhalt dieser Nachricht ist vertraulich und nur für den angegebenen
Empfänger bestimmt. Jede Form der Kenntnisgabe, Veröffentlichung oder
Weitergabe an Dritte durch den Empfänger ist unzulässig. Sollte diese Nachricht
nicht für Sie bestimmt sein, so bitten wir Sie, sich mit uns per E-Mail oder
telefonisch in Verbindung zu setzen.
--------------------------------------------
Should you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact us.
Best regards,
Volker A. Greimann
- legal department -
Key-Systems GmbH
Im Oberen Werk 1
66386 St. Ingbert
Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901
Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851
Email: vgreimann@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:vgreimann@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Web: www.key-systems.net<http://www.key-systems.net> /
www.RRPproxy.net<http://www.RRPproxy.net>
www.domaindiscount24.com<http://www.domaindiscount24.com> /
www.BrandShelter.com<http://www.BrandShelter.com>
Follow us on Twitter or join our fan community on Facebook and stay updated:
www.key-systems.net/facebook<http://www.key-systems.net/facebook>
www.twitter.com/key_systems<http://www.twitter.com/key_systems>
CEO: Alexander Siffrin
Registration No.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken
V.A.T. ID.: DE211006534
Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP
www.keydrive.lu<http://www.keydrive.lu>
This e-mail and its attachments is intended only for the person to whom it is
addressed. Furthermore it is not permitted to publish any content of this
email. You must not use, disclose, copy, print or rely on this e-mail. If an
addressing or transmission error has misdirected this e-mail, kindly notify the
author by replying to this e-mail or contacting us by telephone.
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|