[gnso-thickwhoispdp-wg] MP3 THICK WHOIS meeting - 14 May 2013

[Julia Charvolen <julia.charvolen@xxxxxxxxx>]

Dear All,

The next  Thick Whois PDP Working Group call will be held on Tuesday 21 May at 
1400<x-apple-data-detectors://0> UTC.

Please find the MP3 recording of the Thick Whois PDP Working Group call held on 
Tuesday 14 May 2013 at 14:00 UTC at:

http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-thick-whois-20130514-en.mp3

On page:  
http://gnso.icann.org/calendar/#<http://gnso.icann.org/calendar/#<http://gnso.icann.org/calendar/#<http://gnso.icann.org/calendar/#mars>apr>may


The recordings and transcriptions of the calls are posted on the GNSO Master 
Calendar page:
http://gnso.icann.org/calendar/


Attendees:
Marc Anderson – RySG
Roy Balleste – NCUC
Iliya Bazlyankov - RrSG
Don Blumenthal – RySG
Amr Elsadr - NCSG
Alan Greenberg – ALAC
Volker Greimann – RrSG
Carolyn Hoover - RySG
Marie-Laure Lemineur – NPOC
Steve Metalitz - IPC
Mikey O'Connor – ISPCP
Susan Prosser – RrSG
Tim Ruiz - RrSG
Jill Titzer – RrSG

Apologies:
Carlton Samuels – ALAC
Rick Wesson - Individual
Jonathan Zuck – IPC
Avri Doria – NCSG
Frederic Guillemaut - RrSG

ICANN staff:
Marika Konings
Berry Cobb
Lars Hoffmann
Julia Charvolen


** Please let me know if your name has been left off the list **


Mailing list archives:
http://forum.icann.org/lists/gnso-thickwhoispdp-wg/

Wiki page:
https://community.icann.org/x/whgQAg


Thank you.
Kind regards,
Julia Charvolen
For GNSO Secretariat


Adobe Chat Transcript for 14 May 2013:
Marika Konings:Welcome to the 'thick' Whois WG Meeting of 14 May 2013
  Mike O'Connor:hmm. just dialed in with a different number today -- 
877-818-6787<tel:877-818-6787>
  Mike O'Connor:tried the usual number and got rerouted
  Mike O'Connor:should i try again?
  Marika Konings:For Belgium the number also seems to have changed: 0800 
48360<tel:0800%2048360> (if anyone else is dialing in from here)
  Marika Konings:For those dialing in from the US, please use 
1-877-818-6787<tel:1-877-818-6787>
  Marika Konings:As the numbers have changed, we may have issues connecting the 
audio via Adobe Connect, so please dial into the conference bridge
  Jill Titzer:Good morning
  Marika Konings:Apologies for the inconvenience
  Jill Titzer:Thank you that was going to be my next question
  Marika Konings:Looks like audio has been connected in Adobe Connect!
  Jill Titzer:are any of you speaking
  Don Blumenthal - Public Interest Registry:The audio bridge just woke up.
  Marika Konings:Yes, people are speaking - can you hear us?
  Jill Titzer:no  I will dial in
  Volker Greimann:apologies
  Volker Greimann:just tuned in
  Julia Charvolen:Apparently the bridges have been connected
  Don Blumenthal - Public Interest Registry:Sorry. I meant the Adboe setup woke 
up.
  Volker Greimann:i am listening under the adobe, cannot speak though
  Julia Charvolen:There is audio on Adobe Connect
  Susan Prosser:I assumed that was a *hint* to me to use adobe
  Don Blumenthal - Public Interest Registry:Susan, welcoome back.
  Susan Prosser:thanks Don... back in physical state at least :)
  Julia Charvolen:Noted for Christopher George, thank you
  Julia Charvolen:Alan Greenberg joined the meeting
  Alan Greenberg:Took forever to get on - phone kept dropping before operator 
came on...
  Alan Greenberg:I'll accept decrepid, but not elderly!
  Julia Charvolen:Roy Balleste joined the meeting
  Tim Ruiz:@Alan - Experienced
  Julia Charvolen:Amr Elsadr joined the meeting
  Amr Elsadr:Hi..., just joined the call
  Julia Charvolen:Marie Laure Lemineur joined the meeting
  Jill Titzer:sorry for the delay, I was having issues with Adobe
  Jill Titzer:but I copied
  Jill Titzer:The main gist is that there *may* (or probably?) be issues with 
respect to privacy in the future, but those issues will apply to other gTLDs as 
well, and thus will need to be addressed by ICANN. Existing Ry policy and 
practice allow flexibility when needed, and the new RAA provides similar 
options for registrars. The agreement of the RrSG implies that they perceive no 
IMMEDIATE issue. So although privacy issues may become a substantive issue in 
the future, and should certainly be part of the investigation of a replacement 
for Whois, it is not a reason to not proceed with this PDP WG recommending 
thick Whois for all.
  Don Blumenthal - Public Interest Registry:Yep. Just got back in.
  steve metalitz:Perhaps replace "seem to be related to" with "seem to turn 
upon" or "seem to be dictated by"
  Carolyn Hoover:Marika - my question on Competition had a response during the 
last call that I thought was a good explanation that should be added to the 
competition Conclusion as an explanation for the item I had questioned.
  Marika Konings:@Carolyn - was that response captured by the earlier 
discussion regarding Alan's statement or was it something else?
  Carolyn Hoover:@Marika - Something else.  I believe it was in chat.
  Marika Konings:Would a possible compromise be to change the sentence that Amr 
referenced to 'most of these issues do not seem to be related to whether a 
thick or thin Whois model is being used' instead of the current workding of 
'none of these issues'.
  Marika Konings:@Carolyn - I'll check last week's chat and otherwise please 
feel free to suggest additional edits when this section gets integrated in the 
Initial Report.
  Roy Balleste:Registrants have to also be considered.
  Don Blumenthal - Public Interest Registry:I'm having lots of connection 
problems. Lots of thoughts but I'll contribute to the preamble rewrite.
  Amr Elsadr:Thanks Alan..., I really don't disagree and am not suggesting a 
change in the statement. All your points seem pretty solid to me. Just 
uncomfortable with the lack of differentiation between concerns 
potential/future/present between thet two models.
  Amr Elsadr:+1 @Marc
  Roy Balleste:+1 Marc
  marie-laure lemineur:+1Marc
  Roy Balleste:+1 Amr
  Tim Ruiz:Transfer of data occurs all over the world today as well, between 
reigstrars all over the world from the registrar to thick registries and to 
escrow, etc. So, yes the transition of .com/.net to thick will involve a larger 
volume at once, but the privacy  and data protection issues do not change.   In 
the end , it is primarily a change of focus from registrars to registries.
  Amr Elsadr:@Tim: yes..., the transition of .com/.net is an issue, but so are 
all future/new gtlds beyond this last round.
  Susan Prosser:+1 @Tim - this is not a new frontier
  Marc Anderson:Tim, I disagree that the focus shifts from Registrars to 
Registries.  Registars are involved in both models.  The transition from thick 
to thin does not remove Registrars, it ADDs Registries.
  Tim Ruiz:@Amr, they have nothing to do with what we are doing in this WG. 
There is no transition involved, they will be thick from the outset.
  Amr Elsadr:@Tim..., understood. new gtlds from the outset might also mean new 
registrants and new whois data that is moving across jurisdictional borders for 
the first time, no?
  Don Blumenthal - Public Interest Registry:Tim, not true for a few major TLDs. 
I agree with Mikey. We should drop back, wait for the next version of the 
summary, and see if it reflects the paper. Whether the paper's points are 
correct or not is another matter.
  Tim Ruiz:@Marc, the same is true now, focus is primarily registrars but 
registries are also involved. In a thick model, the focus is now primarily on 
registries and registrars are still involved to a lesser degree. So, the focuse 
shifts from "primarily" registrars to "primarily" registries.
  Tim Ruiz:@Amr, what examples? If you mean that there are registries are in 
jusridisctions where there was not before, that may be true. But that is not a 
concern for this WG is it?
  Amr Elsadr:@Tim..., my understanding of the charter is that, yes, it is a 
concern for this WG. Never really understood why it isn't. :)
  Amr Elsadr:@Tim..., but then again..., I am new at this. :)
  Tim Ruiz:@Amr, my understanding that it is just about existing registries, 
which would mean only com/net/name since all other existing gTLD registries are 
already thick. The decision that all new gTLDs would be thick was part of the 
New gTLD PDP and decided long ago.
  Amr Elsadr:@Tim..., the future gtld registries specified in the WG charter 
are for new ones beyond this last round of new gtlds. The AG already specified 
that a thick model will be used for the last round of new gtlds.
  Tim Ruiz:@Amr, I not new, but I am getting a bit senile these days, so...;-)
  Tim Ruiz:@Amr, I don't think so. Maybe we need to get that clarified.
  Amr Elsadr:@Tim..., I'm sure that's not true (senility)!! :) ..., but that's 
why we're a good team-up..., helping each other out n all. :D
  Tim Ruiz:@Amr, or maybe we are saying the same thing in different ways :)
  Tim Ruiz:Just got dropped from the call. Dialing back in now.
  Alan Greenberg:Good point Tim. The port 43 is possibly a lot more onerous!
  Alan Greenberg:Not applicable to us, but an interesting insight and confirms 
our lack of concern.
  Tim Ruiz:@Alan, exactly.
  Susan Prosser:@Alan @Tim, yes, with RAA changes will already be in place with 
port43 direct to Ry
  Amr Elsadr:Sure thing. Thanks Mikey and Alan.
  Tim Ruiz:Thanks Mikey!
  Jill Titzer:Thanks
  Julia Charvolen:Thank you
  Amr Elsadr:Thanks. Bye.
  Volker Greimann:bye now