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

["Prosser, Susan" <susan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

+1


On Sun, Jun 2, 2013 at 7:39 PM, Tim Ruiz <tim@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

>  Agree!
>
> On Jun 2, 2013, at 5:47 PM, "Mike O'Connor" <mike@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>  hi all,
>
>  i think this round of edits raises an interesting "process" point.  this
> is almost like a public comment from staff.  which is fine, but:
>
>  - it's coming quite late in our conversation
>
>  - they're made without a complete understanding of the discussions we've
> had
>
>  - many of these could be thought of more as implementation issues --
> something we're going to take up in the next round of conversation on the
> way to a final report
>
>  so i'm inclined to agree with Steve.  unless people have *really* strong
> views about the changes that came in from staff, let's take a look at
> setting them aside and including them in the public comments for review.  i
> am still considering the prior draft a "consensus candidate" for approval
> on the call this week.
>
>  my thoughts only, happy to discuss on the call.
>
>  mikey
>
>
>  On Jun 2, 2013, at 1:14 PM, "Metalitz, Steven" <met@xxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>   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>
> *Date: *Tuesday 28 May 2013 20:24
> *To: *"gnso-thickwhoispdp-wg@xxxxxxxxx" <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****
>
>
>
> PHONE: 651-647-6109, FAX: 866-280-2356, WEB: www.haven2.com, HANDLE:
> OConnorStP (ID for Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn, etc.)
>
>