ICANN ICANN Email List Archives

[gnso-thickwhois-dt]


<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

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

  • To: "Drazek, Keith" <kdrazek@xxxxxxxxxxxx>, "Gnso-thickwhois-dt@xxxxxxxxx PDP DT" <Gnso-thickwhois-dt@xxxxxxxxx>
  • Subject: Re: [gnso-thickwhois-dt] weekly status report
  • From: Marika Konings <marika.konings@xxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Mon, 24 Sep 2012 10:23:05 -0700

All, it might be worth noting that several of these issues such as impact on 
data privacy and protection and registrar port 43 Whois requirements have 
already been identified in the charter as areas that will need to be further 
explored in the context of this PDP. If there are any further issues that you 
think are missing from the list on page 2 and 3 of the draft charter, please 
feel free to suggest wording for inclusion in the charter.

Best regards,

Marika

From: <Drazek>, Keith <kdrazek@xxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:kdrazek@xxxxxxxxxxxx>>
Date: Monday 24 September 2012 19:12
To: "Gnso-thickwhois-dt@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:Gnso-thickwhois-dt@xxxxxxxxx>" 
<Gnso-thickwhois-dt@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:Gnso-thickwhois-dt@xxxxxxxxx>>
Subject: RE: [gnso-thickwhois-dt] weekly status report

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<mailto:kdrazek@xxxxxxxxxxxx>

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

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

[cid:image002.gif@01CD9A56.40579900]



From: Volker Greimann [mailto:vgreimann@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Monday, September 24, 2012 1:05 PM
To: Drazek, Keith
Cc: Gnso-thickwhois-dt@xxxxxxxxx<mailto: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/>

[cid:image002.gif@01CD9A56.40579900]



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.






Attachment: image001.gif
Description: image001.gif

Attachment: image002.gif
Description: image002.gif



<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Cookies Policy