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

["Ray Fassett" <ray@xxxxxxxxx>]

Thanks Mikey…just an fyi that a conflict has developed for me and I will not
be able to attend today’s call.

 

Ray

 

From: Mike O'Connor [mailto:mike@xxxxxxxxxx] 
Sent: Thursday, September 27, 2012 1:21 PM
To: Ray Fassett
Cc: 'Metalitz, Steven'; 'Volker Greimann'; 'Drazek, Keith';
Gnso-thickwhois-dt@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [gnso-thickwhois-dt] weekly status report

 

hi Ray,

 

i think i agree -- i was thinking the word in the database/technical way
when Tim originally raised the point -- whereas there is indeed a broader
definition relating to who has authority over the data.  i can imagine a
scenario where the authoritative data store (in a database sense) is with
the registry, but the registrars are the entities that have authority over
that data due to their relationship with customers.

 

i think we need clearer words, and we also need to pick which one we intend.
i'm stuck on what those clearer words would be, but i think that may be
because of my unfamiliarity with the nuance here.  are there two good words
that highlight the difference?

 

once we've got the right words, we've then got an interesting choice to make
as to which one.  clearly, a key "scope" discussion that needs to get
resolved before we wrap up the chartering.

 

thanks,

 

mikey

 

 

On Sep 27, 2012, at 10:48 AM, "Ray Fassett" <ray@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:





It seems to me that Mikey’s suggestion of “adding something like this”:
Other implications of migrating the "authoritative" repository for
registrant data from Registrars to the Registry has had the effect of us
identifying a “vast majority” vs. those not part of the vast majority.  If
so, I think this means the scope of the issues may have the result of the WG
segregating a minority of gTLD’s from the majority of gTLD’s in going about
their work on the issues.  Personally, I think the word “authoritative”, and
trying to fit this word into the Charter in some common and understood
context, has complicated things.

 

Ray

 

From:  <mailto:owner-gnso-thickwhois-dt@xxxxxxxxx>
owner-gnso-thickwhois-dt@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-
<mailto:gnso-thickwhois-dt@xxxxxxxxx> gnso-thickwhois-dt@xxxxxxxxx] On
Behalf Of Metalitz, Steven
Sent: Thursday, September 27, 2012 10:44 AM
To: 'Volker Greimann'; Drazek, Keith
Cc:  <mailto:Gnso-thickwhois-dt@xxxxxxxxx> Gnso-thickwhois-dt@xxxxxxxxx PDP
DT
Subject: RE: [gnso-thickwhois-dt] weekly status report

 

Volker makes the important point that this issue already exists, it is not
created by a move to thick Whois.  And what Keith says about a registry that
“has always had thick whois” is equally true about any registry that “has
not always had thick Whois” – “The registrants in those TLDs gave their
consent for the data transfer upon registration of their domain name(s).”
This is true of every single gTLD domain name in existence, because of the
RAA provision that requires registrars to obtain this consent.

 

Similarly, the issue of “authoritativeness”  of Whois data in the thick
registry setting already exists in the vast majority of gTLD registries.  I
appreciate Tim’s view that perhaps registrars that service thick registries
should not be required to maintain Whois data any more, but that would
require a change in the RAA and clearly seems out of scope for this PDP.   

 

In sum I think the draft adequately captures the scope of the issues that
the Working Group needs to address. 

 

Steve Metalitz   

 

 

 

From:  <mailto:owner-gnso-thickwhois-dt@xxxxxxxxx>
owner-gnso-thickwhois-dt@xxxxxxxxx
<mailto:[mailto:owner-gnso-thickwhois-dt@xxxxxxxxx]>
[mailto:owner-gnso-thickwhois-dt@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Volker Greimann
Sent: Tuesday, September 25, 2012 4:23 AM
To: Drazek, Keith
Cc:  <mailto:Gnso-thickwhois-dt@xxxxxxxxx> Gnso-thickwhois-dt@xxxxxxxxx PDP
DT
Subject: Re: [gnso-thickwhois-dt] weekly status report

 

Hi Keith,

I agree that cross-border transfers of data would be an issue for registries
switching to a thick model, however all registrants have allready agreed to
the publication of the data, and in many cases also to a transfer abroad due
to many registrar policies having been written with both thick and thin
models in mind. Registrants also agreed to be bound by policy changes.
Still, the issue is not negligible. Maybe it could be solved by the registry
by setting up data centers in such jurisdictions where data transfer would
be problematic, and the central register only pointing to the geographic
location of the domain, just as currently they point to the individual
registrars? 

This is an issue that needs more thought.

Volker

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
 <mailto:kdrazek@xxxxxxxxxxxx> kdrazek@xxxxxxxxxxxx

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

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

<image003.gif>

 

 

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

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

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

<image003.gif>

 

 

From:  <mailto:owner-gnso-thickwhois-dt@xxxxxxxxx>
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;  <mailto:Gnso-thickwhois-dt@xxxxxxxxx>
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" < <mailto:mike@xxxxxxxxxx> mike@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Sat, September 22, 2012 10:03 am
To: " <mailto:Gnso-thickwhois-dt@xxxxxxxxx> Gnso-thickwhois-dt@xxxxxxxxx PDP
DT"
< <mailto:Gnso-thickwhois-dt@xxxxxxxxx> 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>
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:  <mailto:vgreimann@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> vgreimann@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
 
Web:  <http://www.key-systems.net> www.key-systems.net /
<http://www.RRPproxy.net> www.RRPproxy.net
 <http://www.domaindiscount24.com> www.domaindiscount24.com /
<http://www.BrandShelter.com> www.BrandShelter.com
 
Folgen Sie uns bei Twitter oder werden Sie unser Fan bei Facebook:
 <http://www.key-systems.net/facebook> www.key-systems.net/facebook
 <http://www.twitter.com/key_systems> www.twitter.com/key_systems
 
Geschäftsführer: Alexander Siffrin
Handelsregister Nr.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken 
Umsatzsteuer ID.: DE211006534
 
Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP
 <http://www.keydrive.lu> 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:  <mailto:vgreimann@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> vgreimann@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
 
Web:  <http://www.key-systems.net> www.key-systems.net /
<http://www.RRPproxy.net> www.RRPproxy.net
 <http://www.domaindiscount24.com> www.domaindiscount24.com /
<http://www.BrandShelter.com> www.BrandShelter.com
 
Follow us on Twitter or join our fan community on Facebook and stay updated:
 <http://www.key-systems.net/facebook> www.key-systems.net/facebook
 <http://www.twitter.com/key_systems> www.twitter.com/key_systems
 
CEO: Alexander Siffrin
Registration No.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken 
V.A.T. ID.: DE211006534
 
Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP
 <http://www.keydrive.lu> 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.
 
 
 






-- 
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:  <mailto:vgreimann@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> vgreimann@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
 
Web:  <http://www.key-systems.net> www.key-systems.net /
<http://www.RRPproxy.net> www.RRPproxy.net
 <http://www.domaindiscount24.com> www.domaindiscount24.com /
<http://www.BrandShelter.com> www.BrandShelter.com
 
Folgen Sie uns bei Twitter oder werden Sie unser Fan bei Facebook:
 <http://www.key-systems.net/facebook> www.key-systems.net/facebook
 <http://www.twitter.com/key_systems> www.twitter.com/key_systems
 
Geschäftsführer: Alexander Siffrin
Handelsregister Nr.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken 
Umsatzsteuer ID.: DE211006534
 
Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP
 <http://www.keydrive.lu> 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:  <mailto:vgreimann@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> vgreimann@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
 
Web:  <http://www.key-systems.net> www.key-systems.net /
<http://www.RRPproxy.net> www.RRPproxy.net
 <http://www.domaindiscount24.com> www.domaindiscount24.com /
<http://www.BrandShelter.com> www.BrandShelter.com
 
Follow us on Twitter or join our fan community on Facebook and stay updated:
 <http://www.key-systems.net/facebook> www.key-systems.net/facebook
 <http://www.twitter.com/key_systems> www.twitter.com/key_systems
 
CEO: Alexander Siffrin
Registration No.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken 
V.A.T. ID.: DE211006534
 
Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP
 <http://www.keydrive.lu> 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.
 
 
 

 

- - - - - - - - -

phone    651-647-6109  

fax                          866-280-2356  

web        http://www.haven2.com

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