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

[Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@xxxxxxxxx>]

At 03/06/2013 03:27 AM, Marika Konings wrote:
> Hi All,
>
> I apologise if these comments are considered late in the 
> conversation, but having looked through them again, I do believe 
> most of these are merely corrections or adding further details to 
> non-substantive parts of the report. The only 'bigger' item, from my 
> perspective, is the comments raised in the context of 
> authoritativeness, but if the WG is of the view that the points 
> raised have already been sufficiently discussed and considered, it 
> is obviously within your remit to dismiss these. As we are slightly 
> ahead of schedule (target date for publication is 24 June), I do 
> hope the WG is willing to consider those edits / comments that are 
> intended to clarify / correct some of the assumptions made in the report.
I don't think we can dismiss the new comment completely, since some 
apparently correct errors in what we have.
However, there are also a number of issues raised regarding escrow 
which need to be preserved, but may not be relevant to the discussion 
at hand. Certainly a number of issues are raised where refinements in 
escrow processes (and perhaps contract provisions) might make the DNS 
more resistant to contracted party failures or negligence. To the 
extent that these issues make our statements false, we need to fix 
things, but I think that a compendium of these "interesting" 
discoveries should be segregated from the body of the report, and 
need not be in this preliminary report.

> With regard to one of the points Steve made:
> - 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 think the intent was to clarify that the registrar 
> would likely be mirroring the registry database, and not necessarily 
> publishing the information from their own database.
This is an issue that I have raised multiple times. It might make 
complete sense for a registrar, in a thick Whois environment, to 
simply pass through the registry data. But we have no statistics to 
indicate that is what all or even a majority of registrars actually 
do, and there is no contractual provision requiring them to do so. We 
can recommend such a requirement if we wish, but let's not pretend it 
is already there.
Alan


> Unfortunately I will not be able to attend tomorrow's meeting as 
> I'll be on a plane, but Berry will be on to provide staff support. 
> Attached you will find the pdf version, including line numbers.
> With best regards,
>
> Marika
>
> From: Mike O'Connor <<mailto:mike@xxxxxxxxxx>mike@xxxxxxxxxx>
> Date: Sunday 2 June 2013 23:46
> To: "Metalitz, Steven" <<mailto:met@xxxxxxx>met@xxxxxxx>
> Cc: Marika Konings 
> <<mailto:marika.konings@xxxxxxxxx>marika.konings@xxxxxxxxx>, 
> "<mailto:gnso-thickwhoispdp-wg@xxxxxxxxx>gnso-thickwhoispdp-wg@xxxxxxxxx" 
> <<mailto:gnso-thickwhoispdp-wg@xxxxxxxxx>gnso-thickwhoispdp-wg@xxxxxxxxx>
> Subject: Re: [gnso-thickwhoispdp-wg] For your review - revised 
> version of the 'thick' Whois Initial Report
> 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" 
> <<mailto:met@xxxxxxx>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: 
> > <mailto:owner-gnso-thickwhoispdp-wg@xxxxxxxxx>owner-gnso-thickwhoispdp-wg@xxxxxxxxx 
> > [<mailto:owner->mailto:owner-<mailto:gnso-thickwhoispdp-wg@xxxxxxxxx>gnso-thickwhoispdp-wg@xxxxxxxxx] 
> > On Behalf Of Marika Konings
> > Sent: Saturday, June 01, 2013 6:22 AM
> > To: <mailto:gnso-thickwhoispdp-wg@xxxxxxxxx>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 
> > <<mailto:marika.konings@xxxxxxxxx>marika.konings@xxxxxxxxx>
> > Date: Tuesday 28 May 2013 20:24
> > To: 
> > "<mailto:gnso-thickwhoispdp-wg@xxxxxxxxx>gnso-thickwhoispdp-wg@xxxxxxxxx" 
> > <<mailto: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: 
> <http://www.haven2.com>www.haven2.com, HANDLE: OConnorStP (ID for 
> Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn, etc.)