[gnso-thickwhoispdp-wg] FW: Input requested on 'thick' Whois Policy Development Process

[Glen de Saint Géry <Glen@xxxxxxxxx>]

Glen de Saint Géry

GNSO Secretariat

gnso.secretariat@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx

http://gnso.icann.org

 

From: Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond [mailto:ocl@xxxxxxx] 
Sent: mercredi 23 janvier 2013 01:03
To: gnso.secretariat@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Cc: Alan Greenberg; ICANN At-Large Staff
Subject: Re: Input requested on 'thick' Whois Policy Development Process

 

Dear Glen,

thank you very much for your kind message below. Please be so kind to extend
the ALAC's thanks to the Chair of the 'thick' Whois Policy Development
Process Working Group for his patience in allowing us to take more days to
provide the ALAC's input. This was much appreciated due to much of the
comment period falling within the Holiday Season.

I have the honour to provide you herewith with the ALAC's input as attached.
Although we have used the form which was provided for input, this is a
Statement of the ALAC, which means that its contents have been reviewed by
the 15-member At-Large Advisory Committee and ratified with 14 votes in
favour, 0 against and 0 abstentions in addition to the list of members
having directly contributed to its contents, as listed in the Statement.

Thank you again for allowing this bottom-up input to take place. We look
forward to the products of the working group in due course and would be
happy to provide any further formal input if so required. In the meantime,
our community members will continue to monitor progress very closely since
this is an issue which very much affects individual Internet users.

Best regards,

Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond
ALAC Chair




On 05/12/2012 12:29, Glen de Saint Géry wrote:

 

 

Dear SO/AC Chair,

 

As you may be aware, the GNSO Council recently initiated a Policy
Development Process (PDP) on ‘thick’ Whois. As part of its efforts to obtain
input from the broader ICANN Community at an early stage of its
deliberations, the Working Group that has been tasked with addressing this
issue is looking for any input or information that may help inform its
deliberations. You are strongly encouraged to provide any input or
information you or members of your respective communities may have to the
GNSO Secretariat ( <mailto:gnso.secretariat@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
gnso.secretariat@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx).

 

For further background information on the WG’s activities to date, please
see  <https://community.icann.org/display/PDP/Home>
https://community.icann.org/display/PDP/Home. Below you’ll find an overview
of the issues that the WG’s has been tasked to address per its charter.

 

If possible, the WG would greatly appreciate if it could receive your input
by 9 January 2012 at the latest. If you cannot submit your input by that
date, but your group would like to contribute, please let us know when we
can expect to receive your contribution so we can plan accordingly. Your
input will be very much appreciated.

 

With best regards,

 

Mikey O’Connor, Chair of the ‘thick’ Whois PDP Working Group

 

>From the Charter (see  <https://community.icann.org/x/vIg3Ag>
https://community.icann.org/x/vIg3Ag):

 

The PDP Working Group 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 on this issue, the
PDP WG should, at a minimum, consider the following elements as detailed in
the Final Issue Report:

 

-          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.

-          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.

-          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?

-          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?

-          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?

-          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?

-          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.

-          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?

-          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?

-          Data escrow: ‘thick’ Whois might obviate the need for the
registrar escrow program and attendant expenses to ICANN and registrars.

-          Registrar Port 43 Whois requirements: ‘thick’ Whois could make
the requirement for Registrars to maintain Port 43 Whois access redundant.

 

Should the PDP WG reach consensus on a recommendation that ‘thick’ Whois
should be required for all gTLDs, the PDP WG is also expected to consider:

-          Cost implications for gTLD registries, registrars and registrants
of a transition to ‘thick’ Whois

-          Guidelines as to how to conduct such a transition (timeline,
requirements, potential changes to Registration Agreements, etc.)

-          Are special provisions and/or exemptions needed for gTLD
registries which operate a ‘thick’ Whois but provide tiered access, for
example?

 

In addition, the PDP WG should take into account other ICANN initiatives
that may help inform the deliberations limited to this specific topic such
as;

*       Registry/registrar separation and related developments with regards
to access to customer data;
*       Output from any/all of the four Whois Studies chartered by the GNSO
Council, if completed in time for consideration by the WG;
*       The 2004 transition of .ORG from thin to thick;
*       The work being done concurrently on the internationalization of
Whois and the successor to the Whois protocol and data model;
*       Results of the RAA negotiations, and 
*       Recommendations of the Whois Review Team.

 

 

 

Glen de Saint Géry 

GNSO Secretariat 

gnso.secretariat@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx 

http://gnso.icann.org

 

 





-- 
Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond, PhD
http://www.gih.com/ocl.html

Attachment: ALAC Statement on the Thick Whois PDP WG.pdf
Description: Adobe PDF document

Attachment: smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature