[gnso-thickwhoispdp-wg] RE: For your review - revised version of the 'thick' Whois Initial Report

["Metalitz, Steven" <met@xxxxxxx>]

Marika and colleagues,

I had certainly had the sense that we were reducing the number of open issues 
as we proceed closer to issuance of our draft report, so I was disappointed to 
see so many new issues thrown on the table in your latest version.

On pages 18-19 (the version attached to your e-mail had no line numbers) I see 
some observations about problematic provisions in existing agreements or 
inconsistencies between what registries and registrars are required to do under 
their respective agreements. Assuming these observations are accurate, it is 
important to capture them, but I wonder whether inserting them into this 
document will be distracting or confusing to the reader who may conclude that 
they have a bearing on the overall issue we have been asked to consider.

As the coordinator of the authoritativeness subgroup, it was not reassuring to 
see so many proposed edits to this text, which has been quite stable for 
several weeks now.   The edits on page 33 and footnote 20 make me wonder 
whether their author is confusing authoritativeness with accuracy or perhaps 
with currentness of data.   These are 2 or actually 3 distinct issues.   One of 
the problems with the status quo is that a great deal of Whois data held by 
registrars is authoritative (because there is no other source for it) but 
frequently inaccurate (as well documented in the NORC and other studies).  The 
frequency with which data  is updated might make it more accurate (though not 
so when inaccurate data is updated with new inaccurate data, a common 
occurrence in the current WDPRS, or even when accurate data is updated with 
inaccurate data) but it does not make that data any more or less authoritative 
under the definitions provided in the text of this report.

On page 24, I am not sure where the idea came from that registrars stop 
publishing Whois data in a thick registry environment.  They continue to 
publish this data as before.  Under the proposed 2013 RAA, one channel of this 
publication (Port 43) would no longer be required, but it would still need to 
be made available via website.

I have discussed with Don the issue I raised at the end of our last call (the 
reference to safe harbors which appears on page 44 of the text you circulated). 
We did not reach agreement but I decided to set the issue aside in order to 
expedite our progress toward a draft report.  I guess I have to wonder now 
whether we are really making forward progress or are circling back on issues 
that seemed pretty stable a few weeks ago.

Steve Metalitz
From: owner-gnso-thickwhoispdp-wg@xxxxxxxxx 
[mailto:owner-gnso-thickwhoispdp-wg@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Marika Konings
Sent: Saturday, June 01, 2013 6:22 AM
To: gnso-thickwhoispdp-wg@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: [gnso-thickwhoispdp-wg] For your review - revised version of the 
'thick' Whois Initial Report

Dear All,

Please find attached for your review an updated version of the Initial Report 
which incorporates the changes discussed on Tuesday's meeting as well as some 
additional proposed edits / comments provided by some of my colleagues (most of 
these are clarifications / corrections). To facilitate review I've accepted all 
the changes from the previous version. There may be some additional comments 
forthcoming, but I already wanted to share this version with you to allow 
sufficient time to review and highlight any other substantive comments that 
should be considered by the WG prior to the next meeting.

With best regards,

Marika

From: Marika Konings <marika.konings@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:marika.konings@xxxxxxxxx>>
Date: Tuesday 28 May 2013 20:24
To: "gnso-thickwhoispdp-wg@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:gnso-thickwhoispdp-wg@xxxxxxxxx>" 
<gnso-thickwhoispdp-wg@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:gnso-thickwhoispdp-wg@xxxxxxxxx>>
Subject: [gnso-thickwhoispdp-wg] Final call - please share any substantive 
comments on the Initial Report by 4 June

Dear All,

As discussed during today's meeting, please share any substantive comments you 
have on the latest version of the Initial Report (see attached) ahead of the 
next meeting (Tuesday 4 June). The WG intends to close the list of substantive 
issues that need to be further discussed by that date.

With best regards,

Marika