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

["Tim Ruiz" <tim@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Bingo! Thnaks Ray.

Tim


-------- Original Message --------
Subject: RE: [gnso-thickwhois-dt] weekly status report
From: "Ray Fassett" <ray@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, September 27, 2012 5:11 pm
To: "'Mike O'Connor'" <mike@xxxxxxxxxx>,Gnso-thickwhois-dt@xxxxxxxxx

I think you are getting there, Mikey.  Maybe what was is causing some of the
dilemma is the use of the word “migrating” with “authoritative”…this has a
ring to it that it is the “authority” that is “migrating” upon a registry
transitioning from thin to thick.  Migrating means moving from one place to
another (i.e. not being in both places) and maybe this is part of the
challenge we have not to get into the middle of as it pertains to the word
“authoritative”.  Just thinking out loud.

 

Anyway, how does this sound:

 

Other implications as a result of a thin Registry becoming an authoritative
repository for registrant Whois data during the transition from a
thin-registry model to a thick-registry model.

 

 

From: owner-gnso-thickwhois-dt@xxxxxxxxx
[mailto:owner-gnso-thickwhois-dt@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Mike O'Connor
Sent: Thursday, September 27, 2012 5:40 PM
To: Gnso-thickwhois-dt@xxxxxxxxx DT
Subject: Re: [gnso-thickwhois-dt] weekly status report

 

hi all,

 

we had a pretty good discussion abut this on the call and i walked away with
an action item to try to rewrite that phrase i came up with.  i'm putting
the rest of my changes into the charter right now, but since this
conversation is running along so well i wanted to throw my draft into this
thread for your review.

 

note -- we're just trying to write a piece of the charter that lets the
actual working group have the proper discussion, without actually having the
discussion in advance.

 

so here's my attempt to fix the problem that i created.

 

Other implications of migrating the authoritative repository for registrant
Whois data from Registrars to the Registry during the transition from a
thin-registry model to a thick-registry model. The Working Group should
consider the term “authoritative” in both the technical (the repository of
the authoritative data) and policy (who has authority over the data)
meanings of the word when considering this issue.

 

what do you think?  does that give the WG the right guidance?

 

carry on.  :-)

 

mikey

 

 

On Sep 27, 2012, at 4:32 PM, Bob Bruen <bruen@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:





Hi Tim,

That's what I would expect as well, but someone I trust was told in a
meeting with ICANN staff, that ICANN does not believe they own the data.
Moreover, they said they did not have access to escrowed data.

It could be true that the ICANN staff was wrong, but I think it would best
to have ICANN clarify this point, rather than assuming what is the case.

                      --bob

On Thu, 27 Sep 2012, Tim Ruiz wrote:




Bob,
 
In the RAA ICANN dictates what data is to be collected, how it may be used,
when and how to share it, when and
how it is to be escrowed, grants rights to certain portions of it to the
registrar, etc. For all practical
purposes that sounds like they own it to me :)
Tim  
 
     -------- Original Message --------
     Subject: Re: [gnso-thickwhois-dt] weekly status report
     From: Bob Bruen <bruen@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
     Date: Thu, September 27, 2012 12:50 pm
     To: "Mike O'Connor" <mike@xxxxxxxxxx>
     Cc: Ray Fassett <ray@xxxxxxxxx>, "'Metalitz, Steven'" <met@xxxxxxx>,
     "'Volker Greimann'" <vgreimann@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "'Drazek,
     Keith'" <kdrazek@xxxxxxxxxxxx>, Gnso-thickwhois-dt@xxxxxxxxx

     Hi,

     There is serious underlying problem in that ICANN does not own the
whois
     data nor does have it have any authority over it. This problem came to
the
     forefront several years ago with the RegisterFly incident. The whois
data
     was then escrowed for a while (Iron Mountain), but only with the
     cooperation of the registrars/registries. I am not sure, but I think
the
     escrow program is no longer happening.

     The registrars/registries appear to be the authority over the data, not
     because of their relationship with their customers, but just because
they
     are the authority.

     --bob

     On Thu, 27 Sep 2012, Mike O'Connor wrote:

     > 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: owner-gnso-thickwhois-dt@xxxxxxxxx
[mailto:owner-gnso-thickwhois-dt@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf
     Of Metalitz, Steven
     >> Sent: Thursday, September 27, 2012 10:44 AM
     >> To: 'Volker Greimann'; Drazek, Keith
     >> Cc: 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: 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: 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
     >> kdrazek@xxxxxxxxxxxx
     >>
     >> m: +1-571-377-9182
     >> 21345 Ridgetop Circle Dulles, VA 20166
     >>
     >> VerisignInc.com
     >> <image003.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
     >>
     >> VerisignInc.com
     >> <image003.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
     >> handle OConnorStP (ID for public places like Twitter, Facebook,
Google, etc.)
     >>
     >>
     >>
     >>
     >>
     >> --
     >> Bei weiteren Fragen stehen wir Ihnen gerne zur Verf�gung.
     >>
     >> Mit freundlichen Gr��en,
     >>
     >> 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 / www.RRPproxy.net
     >> www.domaindiscount24.com / 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
     >>
     >> Gesch�ftsf�hrer: Alexander Siffrin
     >> Handelsregister Nr.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken
     >> Umsatzsteuer ID.: DE211006534
     >>
     >> Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP
     >> www.keydrive.lu
     >>
     >> Der Inhalt dieser Nachricht ist vertraulich und nur f�r den
angegebenen Empf�nger bestimmt. Jede
     Form der Kenntnisgabe, Ver�ffentlichung oder Weitergabe an Dritte durch
den Empf�nger ist
     unzul�ssig. Sollte diese Nachricht nicht f�r 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 / www.RRPproxy.net
     >> www.domaindiscount24.com / 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
     >>
     >> 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 Verf�gung.
     >>
     >> Mit freundlichen Gr��en,
     >>
     >> 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 / www.RRPproxy.net
     >> www.domaindiscount24.com / 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
     >>
     >> Gesch�ftsf�hrer: Alexander Siffrin
     >> Handelsregister Nr.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken
     >> Umsatzsteuer ID.: DE211006534
     >>
     >> Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP
     >> www.keydrive.lu
     >>
     >> Der Inhalt dieser Nachricht ist vertraulich und nur f�r den
angegebenen Empf�nger bestimmt. Jede
     Form der Kenntnisgabe, Ver�ffentlichung oder Weitergabe an Dritte durch
den Empf�nger ist
     unzul�ssig. Sollte diese Nachricht nicht f�r 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 / www.RRPproxy.net
     >> www.domaindiscount24.com / 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
     >>
     >> 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.)
     >
     >

     --
     Dr. Robert Bruen
     Cold Rain Labs
     http://coldrain.net/bruen
     +1.802.579.6288


-- 
Dr. Robert Bruen
Cold Rain Labs
http://coldrain.net/bruen
+1.802.579.6288

 

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