[npoc-voice] Thick Whois Survey

[mlemineur@xxxxxxxxxxxx]

Dear colleagues,

The “thick” Whois PDP  Working Group would appreciate the NPOC’s input
through the text below. Please note that the deadline to send our
statement as a community to the GNSO Secretariat  is 9 January 2012.
Nevertheless, our internal NPOC deadline is 7 January 2013 since once we
have received on our NPOC voice-list the feedback from individual members
of our community, we will decide if there is consensus and therefore a
need for summarizing the different responses in one common NPOC statement
or if we send all the responses reflecting different views and opinions of
our community members. ou have any questions please do not hesitate to
contact me for further information.

Thank you.

Kind regards,

Marie-laure

Stakeholder Group / Constituency /


Input Template ‘thick’ Whois PDP Working Group that the Working Group

PLEASE SUBMIT YOUR RESPONSE AT THE LATEST BY 9 January 2012 to the
SECRETARIAT BY 9 January 2013 (gnso.secretariat@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx), which
will forward your statements to the Working Group. If additional time is
needed by your SG / AC to provide your feedback, please inform the
secretariat accordingly, including the expected delivery date so that this
can be factored in by the WG. The GNSO Council has formed a  Working Group
of interested stakeholders and Stakeholder Group / Constituency
representatives, to collaborate broadly with knowledgeable individuals and
organizations, in order to consider recommendations in relation to ‘thick’
Whois.

Part of the working group’s effort will be to incorporate ideas and
suggestions gathered from Stakeholder Groups, Constituencies through this
template Statement.

Please note that the WG is currently in an information-gathering phase.
Inserting your response in this form will make it much easier for the
Working Group to summarize the responses. This information is helpful to
the community in understanding the points of view of various stakeholders.
However, you should feel free to add any information you deem important to
inform the working group’s deliberations, even if this does not fit into
any of the questions listed below.

For further information, please visit the WG Workspace
(https://community.icann.org/display/PDP/Home).

Process-        Please identify the member(s) of your stakeholder group /
constituency who is (are) participating in this working group-

Please identify the members of your stakeholder group / constituency who
participated in developing the perspective(s) set forth below-

Please describe the process by which your stakeholder group / constituency
arrived
at the perspective(s) set forth below-

If not indicated otherwise, the WG will consider your submission a SG /C
position/contribution.

Please note that this should not prevent the submission of individual
and/or minority views as part of your submission, as long as these are
clearly identified.

Topics: The WG is tasked to provide the GNSO Council with a policy
recommendation regarding the use of ‘thick’ Whois by all gTLD Registries,
both existing and future.

As part of its deliberations, the WG is expected to consider the topics
listed below in the context of ‘thick’ Whois. Please provide your
stakeholder group’s / constituency’s views, including quantitative and/or
empirical information supporting your views, on these topics in relation
to whether or not to require ‘thick’ Whois for all gTLDs and/or provide
any information that you think will help the WG in its  deliberations (for
further information on each of these topics, please see the WG
Charter https://community.icann.org/x/vIg3Ag): •

………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….

Response consistency – a ‘thick’ Registry can dictate the labeling and
display of Whois information to be sure the information is easy to parse,
and all Registrars/clients would have to display it accordingly. This
could be considered a benefit but also a potential cost. This might also
be a benefit in the context of internationalized registration
data as even with the use of different scripts, uniform data collection
and display standards could be applied.

Your view:

Stability - in the event of a Registrar business or technical failure, it
could be beneficial to ICANN and registrants to have the full set of
domain registration contact data stored by four organizations (the
Registry, the Registry's escrow agent, the Registrar, and the
Registrar's escrow agent), which would be the case in a ‘thick’ registry.

Your view:


Accessibility - is the provision of Whois information at the registry
level under the ‘thick’ Whois model more effective and cost-effective than
a ‘thin’ model in protecting consumers and users of Whois data and
intellectual property owners?

Your view:


Impact on privacy and data protection - how would ‘thick’
Whois affect privacy and data protection, also taking into account the
involvement of different jurisdictions with different laws and legislation
with regard to data privacy as well as possible cross border transfers of
registrant data?

Your view: •
 Cost implications - what are the cost implications of a transition to
'thick' Whois for Registries, Registrars, registrants and other parties
for all gTLDs? Conversely, what are the cost implications to Registries,
Registrars, registrants  and other parties if no transition is mandated?

Your view:


Synchronization/migration - what would be the impact on the registry and
registrar WHOIS and EPP systems for those Registries currently operating a
thin registry, both in the migration phase to ‘thick’ WHOIS as well as
ongoing operations?

Your view: •

Authoritativeness - what are the implications of a ‘thin’ Registry
possibly becoming authoritative for registrant Whois data following the
transition from a thin-registry model to a thick-registry model. The
Working Group should consider the term “authoritative” in both the
technical (the repository of the authoritative data) and policy (who has
authority over the data) meanings of the word when considering this issue.
Your view:

Competition in registry services – what would be the impact on competition
in registry services should all Registries be required to provide Whois
service using the ‘thick’ Whois model – would there be
more, less or no difference with regard to competition in registry services?

Your view:

Existing Whois Applications - What, if anything, are the potential
impacts on the providers of third-party WHOIS-related applications if
‘thick’ WHOIS is required for all gtLDs?

Your view:

Data escrow - ‘thick’ Whois might obviate the need for the registrar
escrow program and attendant expenses to ICANN and registrars.

Your view:


Registrar Port 43 Whois requirements - ‘thick’ Whois could make the
requirement for Registrars to maintain Port 43 Whois access redundant.

Your view:

Based on your assessment of these topics, you are also encouraged to
indicate whether you think there should or there shouldn’t be a
requirement for ‘thick’ Whois by all gTLD Registries.

Your view:


If there is any other information you think should be considered by the WG
as part of its deliberations, please feel free to include that here.

Other information: