[bc-gnso] Council call today

[lynn at goodsecurityconsulting.com]

Yes Bill- our RT made a deliberate distinction between a centralized web interface rather than a database.  
We believe this approach is feasible and would provide consumers with a single URL for whois lookups.
Lynn

Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T

-----Original Message-----
From: "Smith, Bill" <bill.smith at paypal-inc.com>
Sender: owner-bc-gnso at icann.org
Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2012 16:07:06 
To: Steve DelBianco<sdelbianco at netchoice.org>
Cc: bc - GNSO list<bc-gnso at icann.org>
Subject: Re: [bc-gnso] Council call today


A clarification.

I don't think the WHOIS RT recommendations include  "a call for centralized database of WHOIS data". If it does, it's an error. What we are recommending is that there be a centralized point of *access* to WHOIS data.

The data could reside anywhere.

If our report says otherwise, or projects that perception, please let us know.

On Feb 16, 2012, at 6:30 AM, Steve DelBianco wrote:

Resending this to BC List (since I was rejected when sending to BC-Private)

From: Steve DelBianco <sdelbianco at actonline.org<mailto:sdelbianco at actonline.org>>
Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2012 09:03:22 -0500
To: Zahid Jamil <zahid at dndrc.com<mailto:zahid at dndrc.com>>, John Berard <john at crediblecontext.com<mailto:john at crediblecontext.com>>
Cc: <bc-private at icann.org<mailto:bc-private at icann.org>>
Subject: Council call today

John & Zahid — just a follow-up on last week's member call, where we discussed the motions you have today in Council.

Motion to start a PDP on Thick WHOIS:

This one is complicated.

BC wants accessible and accurate WHOIS, and thick WHOIS is part of the solution. But another part of the solution is amending the RAA to require verification of WHOIS data.   And the WHOIS review Team draft report includes many recommendations on WHOIS, including a call for centralized database of WHOIS data.

We also understand that registrars are not willing to share their WHOIS data with a thick .com whois or a a central database — unless ICANN adopts a new "consensus policy" requiring data sharing.  And we know that it takes a PDP to create such a new consensus policy.

However, we don't want to do anything that removes pressure on the current process to amend the RAA.  And we are concerned that launching a new PDP could create an excuse for the RAA negotiators to avoid making any changes on WHOIS.

John Berard was going to ask Stephane about deferring his PDP motion until after the RAA amendments are done.

If John's outreach effort wasn't successful, I think the BC members would want you to ask for a deferral of the PDP motion, for reasons stated above.


Motion for implementation of IRTP Recommendation 8:
Support.  The BC had several members on the IRTP-B working group, and we support implementation of the working group's recommendation.


Motion to send letter to Board asking to allow single-letter IDN gTLDs:
Support.  The BC supports the expansion of gTLDs to IDN users, and wants TLDs to be able to use a single-character IDN if that's most appropriate for the linguistic community being served.


Hope that's helpful.  Let me know if there's any other info I can provide for today's call.

--
Steve DelBianco
Vice chair for policy coordination