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

["Ray Fassett" <ray@xxxxxxxxx>]

Let me see if I understand by way of practical example what is being meant
by the “authoritative issue”.  .ORG collects and publishes thick Whois data.
.ORG collects the thick Whois data from each of its registrars.  Each
registrar decides to no longer publish Whois data for reasons of duplicity.
What with the .ORG Whois data has “authoritatively” changed?

 

Ray

 

From: owner-gnso-thickwhois-dt@xxxxxxxxx
[mailto:owner-gnso-thickwhois-dt@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Mike O'Connor
Sent: Monday, September 24, 2012 2:49 PM
To: Gnso-thickwhois-dt@xxxxxxxxx PDP DT
Subject: Re: [gnso-thickwhois-dt] weekly status report

 

it looks to me like we've got a couple of topics in the existing list that
will give the WG some space to work on these issues.  but i thought i'd take
a try at a hack job to get at the "authoritative" issue

 

here are the two existing questions that seem bear on this discussion and
provide a place for the WG to do work...

 

Impact on privacy and data protection, including consideration of possible
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?

  

Database synchronization between the Registry and Registrars: what would be
the impact on the registry and registrar WHOIS and EPP systems for those
registries currently operating a thin registry, both in the migration phase
to ‘thick’ WHOIS as well as ongoing operations?

 

how about adding one like this?  (feel free to chop my attempt into small
pieces and spit it out if it's wide of the mark)

 

Other implications of migrating the "authoritative" repository for
registrant data from Registrars to the Registry 

 

does that added question/clause capture the sense of the thread?

 

m

 

On Sep 24, 2012, at 12:23 PM, Marika Konings <marika.konings@xxxxxxxxx>
wrote:





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>
Date: Monday 24 September 2012 19:12
To: "Gnso-thickwhois-dt@xxxxxxxxx" <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

 

 


<image001.gif>


Keith Drazek
Director of Policy
kdrazek@xxxxxxxxxxxx

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

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

<image002.gif>

 

 

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

 


<image001.gif>


Keith Drazek
Director of Policy
kdrazek@xxxxxxxxxxxx

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

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

<image002.gif>

 

 

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>
Date: Sat, September 22, 2012 10:03 am
To: "Gnso-thickwhois-dt@xxxxxxxxx PDP DT"
<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 <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
 
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
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
 
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
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.
 
 
 

<image001.gif><image002.gif>

 

- - - - - - - - -

phone      651-647-6109  

fax                           866-280-2356  

web         http://www.haven2.com

handle      OConnorStP (ID for public places like Twitter, Facebook, Google,
etc.)