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

[Frédéric Guillemaut <fg@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

ok !

Frederic Guillemaut
COO
Mailclub
fg@xxxxxxxxxxx



Le 3 juin 2013 à 06:31, "Prosser, Susan" <susan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> a écrit :

> +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.)
>>> 
>