[gnso-thickwhoispdp-wg] RE: BC Input on Thick Whois Questionnaire

[Glen de Saint Géry <Glen@xxxxxxxxx>]

Dear Elisa,

Thank you very much for the Business Constituency's input on Thick Whois. Your 
submission will be forwarded to the Working Group.
Kind regards,

Glen

Glen de Saint Géry
GNSO Secretariat
gnso.secretariat@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://gnso.icann.org

De : Elisa Cooper
Envoyé : mercredi 2 janvier 2013 23:06
À : gnso.secretariat@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Cc
Objet : BC Input on Thick Whois Questionnaire

Please find below a submission by the Business Constituency.

Best,
Elisa

Elisa Cooper
Director of Product Marketing
MarkMonitor

208 389-5779 PH

Stakeholder Group / Constituency / Input Template
'thick' Whois PDP Working Group

PLEASE SUBMIT YOUR RESPONSE AT THE LATEST BY 9 January 2012 TO THE GNSO 
SECRETARIAT 
(gnso.secretariat@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:gnso.secretariat@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>), 
which will forward your statement to the Working Group. If additional time is 
needed by your SG / C to provide your feedback, please inform the secretariat 
accordingly, including the expected delivery date so that this can be factored 
in by the WG.

The GNSO Council has formed a Working Group of interested stakeholders and 
Stakeholder Group / Constituency representatives, to collaborate broadly with 
knowledgeable individuals and organizations, in order to consider 
recommendations in relation to 'thick' Whois.

Part of the working group's effort will be to incorporate ideas and suggestions 
gathered from Stakeholder Groups, Constituencies through this template 
Statement. Please note that the WG is currently in an information-gathering 
phase. Inserting your response in this form will make it much easier for the 
Working Group to summarize the responses. This information is helpful to the 
community in understanding the points of view of various stakeholders. However, 
you should feel free to add any information you deem important to inform the 
working group's deliberations, even if this does not fit into any of the 
questions listed below.

For further information, please visit the WG Workspace 
(https://community.icann.org/display/PDP/Home).

Process

-        Please identify the member(s) of your stakeholder group / constituency 
who is (are) participating in this working group

o   Elisa Cooper

o   Susan Kawaguchi

-        Please identify the members of your stakeholder group / constituency 
who participated in developing the perspective(s) set forth below

o   Elisa Cooper acted a rapporteur for these comments.

-        Please describe the process by which your stakeholder group / 
constituency arrived at the perspective(s) set forth below

o   Initial comments were drafted by Elisa Cooper and then sent to the entire 
Business Constituency for comment and input. Several Business Constituency 
members stated their support for comments as written.

-        If not indicated otherwise, the WG will consider your submission a SG 
/ C position / contribution. Please note that this should not prevent the 
submission of individual and/or minority views as part of your submission, as 
long as these are clearly identified.

Topics:

The WG is tasked to provide the GNSO Council with a policy recommendation 
regarding the use of 'thick' Whois by all gTLD Registries, both existing and 
future. As part of its deliberations, the WG is expected to consider the topics 
listed below in the context of 'thick' Whois. Please provide your stakeholder 
group's / constituency's views, including quantitative and/or empirical 
information supporting your views, on these topics in relation to whether or 
not to require 'thick' Whois for all gTLDs and/or provide any information that 
you think will help the WG in its deliberations (for further information on 
each of these topics, please see the WG Charter 
https://community.icann.org/x/vIg3Ag):

·        Response consistency - a 'thick' Registry can dictate the labeling and 
display of Whois information to be sure the information is easy to parse, and 
all Registrars/clients would have to display it accordingly. This could be 
considered a benefit but also a potential cost. This might also be a benefit in 
the context of internationalized registration data as even with the use of 
different scripts, uniform data collection and display standards could be 
applied.
Your view:
The Business Constituency believes that Whois records should be formatted in a 
standardized, uniform manner.

·        Stability - in the event of a Registrar business or technical failure, 
it could be beneficial to ICANN and registrants to have the full set of domain 
registration contact data stored by four organizations (the Registry, the 
Registry's escrow agent, the Registrar, and the Registrar's escrow agent), 
which would be the case in a 'thick' registry.
Your view:
Yes - the Business Constituency agrees that it could be beneficial to have a 
full set of domain registration data stored by four organizations (the 
Registry, the Registry's escrow agent, the Registrar, and the Registrar's 
escrow agent).

·        Accessibility - is the provision of Whois information at the registry 
level under the 'thick' Whois model more effective and cost-effective than a 
'thin' model in protecting consumers and users of Whois data and intellectual 
property owners?
Your view:
In today's current environment, registrars often do not provide complete 
information via port 43 - and so users are forced to access Whois records only 
from the registrar's website. In other instances registrars limit access to 
Whois based on query volumes. Thick Whois offered by the registry would 
eliminate these issues for .Com and .Net, where the vast majority of gTLDs are 
currently registered.

·        Impact on privacy and data protection - 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 as well as possible cross border transfers of registrant data?
Your view:
The Business Constituency recognizes that in some cases there may be 
jurisdictional privacy issues, but recommends that those issues are handled on 
an exception basis via RSEP.

·        Cost implications - what are the cost implications of a transition to 
'thick' Whois for Registries, Registrars, registrants and other parties for all 
gTLDs? Conversely, what are the cost implications to Registries, Registrars, 
registrants and other parties if no transition is mandated?
Your view:
The Business Constituency supports unrestricted and public access to accurate 
and complete Thick Whois information for all gTLD domain names. Without access 
to complete Whois records, businesses are unable to remediate instances of 
infringement, abuse or fraud. The costs associated with these activities can be 
significant not only to rights owners, but also to victimized Internet users.

·        Synchronization/migration - 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?
Your view:
The Business Constituency understands that there will likely be costs incurred 
on the migration to Thick Whois but reemphasizes the need for unrestricted and 
public access of this data.

·        Authoritativeness - what are the implications of a 'thin' Registry 
possibly becoming authoritative for registrant Whois data following 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.
Your view:
The Business Constituency believes that when a registry transitions to Thick 
Whois that it should become authoritative both from a technical and policy 
perspective.

·        Competition in registry services - what would be the impact on 
competition in registry services should all Registries be required to provide 
Whois service using the 'thick' Whois model - would there be more, less or no 
difference with regard to competition in registry services?
Your view:
As all new gTLDs registries will be required to support Thick Whois, it seems 
more equitable that ALL existing registries also be required to provide Thick 
Whois.

·        Existing Whois Applications - What, if anything, are the potential 
impacts on the providers of third-party WHOIS-related applications if 'thick' 
WHOIS is required for all gTLDs?
Your view:
The Business Constituency believes that access to Thick Whois should improve 
the services provided by third-party applications.

·        Data escrow - 'thick' Whois might obviate the need for the registrar 
escrow program and attendant expenses to ICANN and registrars.
A stated above, the Business Constituency believes that it could be beneficial 
to have a full set of domain registration data stored by four organizations 
(the Registry, the Registry's escrow agent, the Registrar, and the Registrar's 
escrow agent).

Your view:
·        Registrar Port 43 Whois requirements - 'thick' Whois could make the 
requirement for Registrars to maintain Port 43 Whois access redundant.
Your view:
Registrars should continue to provide Whois access via their respective 
websites as registrants are familiar with their registrars and may not be aware 
of or able to locate the registry's website.

Based on your assessment of these topics, you are also encouraged to indicate 
whether you think there should or there shouldn't be a requirement for 'thick' 
Whois by all gTLD Registries.
Your view:
The Business Constituency feels strongly that all gTLD registries support Thick 
Whois.

If there is any other information you think should be considered by the WG as 
part of its deliberations, please feel free to include that here.
Other information: