Re: [ssac-gnso-irdwg] Draft matrix

[Jay Daley <jay@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

On 1/04/2010, at 1:49 PM, James M Galvin wrote:

> I agree with everything that Jay says here with two clarifications indicated 
> inline below.
>> 3.  Impact to registries
>> For thin registries surely the box should say "no impact" - the whole
>> definition of a thin registry is that they don't have registrant
>> data?  I would say that cell B11 and B12 need to be combined into B12
>> and C11 moved to C12, leaving "no impact" in C11 and C12.
> 
> I think what you mean is "no impact" in C11, at least that's what I would do. 
>  If that's not what you mean then I'm confused since you can not both move 
> C11 in to C12 and have "no impact" in C12.

Yes, sorry I meant B11 and C11 should say "no impact".

Jay

> 
> 
>> 
>> 
>> The "if a registry needs to get involved in administering a domain"
>> in C11/C12 hides masks the big issue.
>> 
>> 
>> The gTLD model and most ccTLD models are quite clear - the
>> registrants are customers of the registrar not the registry and so
>> all interaction with them is through the registrar.  Every day on
>> mailing lists I see abusive domains reported and almost always the
>> only interaction from the registry is to prompt the registrar to do
>> something.
>> 
>> 
>> I think this should say "The impact is that the registry will not be
>> able to interpret the registrant information unless that have a
>> service (internal or otherwise) that can translate the
>> script/language used.  This will prevent them from engaging in
>> administering a domain or from extracting detailed statistical
>> information.  If may also hinder them when looking for similar data
>> in different registrations for such purposes as abuse detection.
>> Under the current model of gTLDs and most ccTLDs there is no official
>> role for the registry to do any of these but if such a role were to
>> develop then this would prevent it."
> 
> The important point here is that a registry is not obligated to understand 
> all languages.  When registries get involved in administering a domain it is 
> always through a registrar.  If it's not then the likely context is "abuse" 
> and understanding the language is hardly necessary.  The action most likely 
> to be executed is a "take down", but only after the registrar has not 
> responded.  This action does not require understanding the language.
> 
> 
> Jim
> 
> 
> 
> 
>> 
>> 
>> 4.  Impact to registrant
>> No comment.
>> 
>> 
>> 5.  Impact to WHOIS user
>> Need to add lines for "non-local user receiving WHOIS display in
>> 'official' language" and "non-local user receiving WHOIS display in
>> local language".
>> 
>> 
>> The comment "Pose signficant challenges as Whois now in many
>> languages that the local user would not understand" is not
>> necessarily true - it depends on whether model 2 includes "from a
>> restricted set that the TLD supports" or not.  If it does then this
>> comment is not valid.
>> 
>> 
>> kind regards
>> Jay
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> On 30/03/2010, at 4:36 AM, Steve Sheng wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> Dear IRD-WG,
>> 
>>  Attached please find the draft matrix requested by the WG in the
>> last call. This matrix identifies three different models for
>> registration data and the impact of each model on potential
>> stakeholders.
>> 
>>  Before using this matrix for further deliberation, we want to make
>> sure of its correctness. So I feel it is important for WG members who
>> are from (or knowledgeable of) registrar, registries operations to
>> comment on the registrar and registry section;  for WG members who
>> represent registrants’ right, or users of Whois to comment the
>> respective sections as well.
>> 
>>  Last but not least, if there are additional models that needs to be
>> considered, please don’t hesitate to put them on the table.
>> 
>> 
>> Warmly,
>> Steve
>> 
>> <matrix-draft-329.xls>
> 
> 


-- 
Jay Daley
Chief Executive
.nz Registry Services (New Zealand Domain Name Registry Limited)
desk: +64 4 931 6977
mobile: +64 21 678840