Re: [gnso-thickwhoispdp-experts] First set of questions from the 'thick' Whois WG
All, thank you very much for the feedback received to date. I've collated all the responses (see attached) and shared them with the Working Group. If there is any additional information you would like to share, please let me know and I'll add it to the document. With best regards, Marika From: Greg Aaron <greg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Date: Friday 15 March 2013 16:24 To: Marika Konings <marika.konings@xxxxxxxxx>, "gnso-thickwhoispdp-experts@xxxxxxxxx" <gnso-thickwhoispdp-experts@xxxxxxxxx> Subject: RE: [gnso-thickwhoispdp-experts] First set of questions from the 'thick' Whois WG Dear Marika: Regarding #1: The question asks about discrepancies after a registrar migrated its data into the thick registry. After a registrar migrated its data into the thick registry, I believe the thick registry was for practical purposes (and perhaps legally) considered to be the authoritative source of data, contact data included. The generally observed practice was that once a registrar migrated its contact data into the thick registry, the registrar stopped serving WHOIS from its own database, and began querying the thick registry instead. In such cases, there was only one source of data published for those domain names, and therefore no possibility for confusing differences. There may have been registrars who were still serving their own .ORG WHOIS for a time after they migrated their data to the .ORG registry. If they did, I don¹t know if anyone observed discrepancies. As far as I can find, the .ORG Registry-Registrar Agreement (http://www.icann.org/en/about/agreements/registries/org/registry-agmt-appf- 12nov04-en.htm ) did not explicitly identify the registry as authoritative once the registrar migrated its contact data. But it did require that ³As part of its registration and sponsorship of Registered Names in the Registry TLD, Registrar shall submit complete data as required by technical specifications of the Registry System that are made available to Registrar from time to time.² And it said that ³As part of the EPP migration, Registrars shall be required to provide full contact information required for thick registry WHOIS services. Thick registry WHOIS services will be provided for each .ORG name that has been migrated to EPP.² The .ORG registry was certainly the authoritative source of DNS data as of the day the registry was cutover from VeriSign to PIR. In recent years , various observers have recorded differences in thin .COM/.NET WHOIS data served by the registrar versus that provided by the VeriSign registry. For an example, see the RAPWG WG¹s final report, pages 73-79, especially pages 75-76. For example, the RAPWG saw registrars provide domain expiration dates that were different than those provided by the registry. In another case, a registrar's WHOIS listed a sponsoring registrar different from that listed by the .COM/.NET registry WHOIS. ( http://gnso.icann.org/issues/rap/rap-wg-final-report-29may10-en.pdf ) Regarding #2: I do not know any details about those six complaints relating to privacy issues. I wonder if they were related to proxy data, or if they were related to issues of local data protection/privacy laws. The Panel was asked: ³Do 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?² I don¹t have knowledge about the historical changes over the past ten years, but there are issues that have immediate relevance. Some jurisdictions have data protection laws that prevent registries located in those jurisdictions from revealing the contact data of individuals and perhaps other classes of contacts, an issue that ccTLDs have dealt with for many years. The .CAT and .TEL registries have wrestled recently with conflicting obligations presented by their ICANN contracts and the laws of the countries in which those register operators are located. ICANN will soon authorize new gTLD registries in jurisdictions with strong data protection/privacy laws. Or is the issue not where the registry is located, but where the registrant is located? As an aside, I note that for UDRP challenges, the source of contact data is still the registrar¹s database. (The UDRP Rules say that Providers should be ³sending Written Notice of the complaint to all postal-mail and facsimile addresses (A) shown in the domain name's registration data in Registrar's Whois database².) That language is unchanged from the original 1999 version of the UDRP, when the only gTLDs were .COM, .NET, and .ORG, all in a thin registry. (Was that language consciously retained to help get around proxy contact data? I don¹t know, but I do know that in many cases the registrars doesn¹t have the underlying ³real² contact data anyway.) I wonder if ICANN should consider whether a change is warranted to the UDRP Rules, noting that if the TLD is thick then the registry is the authoritative source of data. All best, --Greg From: owner-gnso-thickwhoispdp-experts@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-thickwhoispdp-experts@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Marika Konings Sent: Wednesday, March 13, 2013 10:48 AM To: gnso-thickwhoispdp-experts@xxxxxxxxx Subject: Re: [gnso-thickwhoispdp-experts] First set of questions from the 'thick' Whois WG * PGP - S/MIME Signed by an unverified key: 3/13/2013 at 10:48:06 AM 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 Attachment:
Responses from Ad-Hoc Expert Panel - 25 March 2013.doc Attachment:
smime.p7s
|