Re: [gnso-thickwhoispdp-experts] First set of questions from the 'thick' Whois WG
It appears that some of you are having problems seeing the actual questions at the bottom of the email. I've now also included them as an attachment. Best regards, Marika From: Marika Konings <marika.konings@xxxxxxxxx> Date: Wednesday 13 March 2013 14:56 To: "gnso-thickwhoispdp-experts@xxxxxxxxx" <gnso-thickwhoispdp-experts@xxxxxxxxx> Subject: [gnso-thickwhoispdp-experts] First set of questions from the 'thick' Whois WG Dear All, Thank you again for participating in the 'thick' Whois Ad-Hoc Expert Panel. Below you will find a first set of questions from the WG. Please feel free to share your feedback / views with the mailing list and I will collate the responses for the WG to review. With best regards, Marika Authoritativeness Sub-Team 1. The PIR Appendix U report), (posted as a reference document on our wiki, see https://community.icann.org/display/PDP/8.+Reference+Documents <https://community.icann.org/display/PDP/8.+Reference+Documents> ), includes the following regarding the transition in .org from thin to thick Whois in 2003: On page 29 (section 2.2.1), PIR was required to report on "discrepancies between Whois data provided by the Registrar and the Whois data in the Registry Operator's Whois database after the migration of the Registrar to the thick EPP model." The report indicates that there were no such discrepancies. Does this mean that (to PIR's knowledge) there were no differences between the Whois data held by registrars and that held by the registry, at least through June 2004, when the report was filed? If so this could be a significant data point for our working group. (For example, in our "authoritativeness" subgroup this question of discrepancies between registrar and registry Whois data has already been raised.) Or does this section of the report refer to something else? Privacy and Data Protection Sub-Team 2. It involves the PIR Appendix U report on the transition from thin to thick Whois in .org (see https://community.icann.org/x/34dEAg). Part 3 of the report (page 30) consists of a table on "Centralized Whois Complaints," and indicates that few such complaints were received during 2003 (the period during which the transition to thick Whois for .org took place). According to the table, only six of such complaints received by PIR during the year were "relating to privacy issues." Is any detail available on these complaints, or do the experts have any recollections regarding them? Furthermore, this part of the report (and see also http://www.icann.org/en/about/agreements/registries/org/registry-agmt-appu-2 3oct02-en.htm <http://www.icann.org/en/about/agreements/registries/org/registry-agmt-appu- 23oct02-en.htm> , which specifies what this report is to contain) was apparently supposed to be submitted annually ("no later than one month after each anniversary date after the Commencement-of-Service date"). I have not been able to locate on the ICANN site any such reports submitted later than June 2004. Does anyone know if this was done and if so where the reports can be found? (I understand that Appendix U was eliminated in the revised .org registry agreement that went into force in 2006, so this question targets the 2004-06 period.) Do you have expert knowledge on how the situation with privacy and data retention and with trans border data movement may have changed during the last decade? If so, can you detail the differences? If not, can you give us references as to whom you believe would be able to give us expert advise on any changed circumstances that may be important considerations today, that were not a consideration then. Attachment:
Questions for Ad-Hoc Expert Panel - 13 March 2013.docx Attachment:
smime.p7s
|