[Gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt] Open Item 7b - Coordination/Incentive for Registrars Migration to Thick

Tue Aug 16 18:35:36 UTC 2016

I agree with Steve that we should look at incentives to move the transition of domain name registrations to the Thick Whois.  And I agree that relying on  compliance to enforce after 18 months is not acceptable due to the compliance team’s collaborative actions with registrars, simple issues take much longer than they need to take,  this could push the timeline much farther down the road.

What if ICANN stepped forward and offered a monetary incentive to move the registrations to Thick Whois within a much shorter time frame?  A small reduction in fees for example.

I am sure there are other positive incentives that we could come up with but if not transparency is always valuable to the ICANN community as a whole.
Susan Kawaguchi
Domain Name Manager
Facebook Legal Dept.

From: <gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt-bounces at icann.org<mailto:gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt-bounces at icann.org>> on behalf of Steven Metalitz <met at msk.com<mailto:met at msk.com>>
Date: Tuesday, August 16, 2016 at 11:24 AM
To: 'Jody Kolker' <jkolker at godaddy.com<mailto:jkolker at godaddy.com>>, Rob Golding <rob.golding at astutium.com<mailto:rob.golding at astutium.com>>, "gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt at icann.org<mailto:gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt at icann.org>" <gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt at icann.org<mailto:gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt at icann.org>>
Subject: Re: [Gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt] Open Item 7b - Coordination/Incentive for Registrars Migration to Thick

Let’s remember why we are having this conversation.

Thick Whois is a consensus policy. And the registrars, through this implementation process, are giving themselves eighteen months (from the date the registry production  system opens – a year from now) to achieve compliance with that policy.  I agree that at that point (February 2019 under the current timetable), failure to provide the required data to the registry will be a matter of contract compliance under the RAA (though I would contest that it becomes “public at that point”).

The question  we are discussing is whether there are any incentives that can be created  so that registrars will provide the required data to the registry within a period of less than 18 months.   Incentives can be positive or negative.  Making public the extent to which each registrar is providing the required data on existing registrations, at some point during the 18-month period, certainly could provide some incentive.  The reaction below (and others on this thread) demonstrate pretty clearly that a registrar would not wish to appear on a public list that shows a relatively low percentage of registrations for which the data has been provided to the registry.  I would call that an incentive for the registrar to move faster toward full achievement of thick Whois than it might otherwise do.  That is how a negative incentive works --- if you don’t do X, then you suffer some detriment.  In this case that detriment takes the form, to use Rob’s term, of “naming and shaming.”  It does not take the form of contract compliance action, because that does not apply until the 18 months have elapsed.

I agree it may be of no immediate value to the registrar to have this information made public.  Value to the registrar is not what we are talking about here.  We are talking about whether making this information public will give registrars an incentive to come into compliance faster than they are required to do (under the deadline they have set for themselves through this group).   Accelerated compliance would benefit the credibility of ICANN and of the multi-stakeholder model, both of which are losing credibility the longer this implementation process drags on.  It could benefit competition, which is another way of saying it could benefit those registrars who move relatively faster toward thick Whois.  It would benefit transparency.  And it would benefit the public (ultimately it was the benefit to the public that motivated ICANN to adopt this consensus policy in the first place).   But no, it would not benefit the registrar that is simply aiming for compliance at the end of  18 months.

What I am drawing from this thread is that the registrars in this group do not want to see any incentives provided for them to do their jobs faster than the 18 months they have decided on as the deadline for doing the job.  This is disappointing but certainly not surprising.  It is a perfectly legitimate position for registrars to take based on their own self-interest, but it gives short shrift to the other interests noted above, including competition, transparency, and the credibility of the multi-stakeholder model.

I would certainly welcome any other suggestions for incentives – positive or negative – to encourage registrars to complete their role in achieving thick Whois in less than 18 months.

Steve Metalitz

From: gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt-bounces at icann.org<mailto:gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt-bounces at icann.org> [mailto:gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Jody Kolker
Sent: Friday, August 12, 2016 6:51 AM
To: Rob Golding; gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt at icann.org<mailto:gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt at icann.org>
Subject: Re: [Gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt] Open Item 7b - Coordination/Incentive for Registrars Migration to Thick

+1.

Thanks,
Jody Kolker
319-294-3933 (office)
319-329-9805 (mobile) Please contact my direct supervisor Charles Beadnall (cbeadnall at godaddy.com<mailto:cbeadnall at godaddy.com>) with any feedback.

This email message and any attachments hereto is intended for use only by the addressee(s) named herein and may contain confidential information. If you have received this email in error, please immediately notify the sender and permanently delete the original and any copy of this message and its attachments.

-----Original Message-----
From: gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt-bounces at icann.org<mailto:gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt-bounces at icann.org> [mailto:gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Rob Golding
Sent: Friday, August 12, 2016 5:22 AM
To: gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt at icann.org<mailto:gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt at icann.org>
Subject: Re: [Gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt] Open Item 7b - Coordination/Incentive for Registrars Migration to Thick

Hi

I cannot see a single valid reason why any form of unnecessary "naming and shaming" relating to a work-in-progress could benefit anyone - verisign producing a X% completed report is fine, but no details need to be "public" relating to any individual registrar.

If the deadlines are not met, that'll be a compliance issue, and public at that point

If the deadline has not yet been reached, there is no benefit to providing fuel for a fire that din't need to be lit and serves no useful purpose

The Registrant (ultimately the only party that matters) isn't asking for this policy, isn't (obviously) benefited by the policy, and publicising sensitive corporate data about their chosen registrar could well be seen as doing demnstrable harm

Rob
--
Rob Golding rob.golding at astutium.com<mailto:rob.golding at astutium.com>
Astutium Ltd, Number One Poultry, London. EC2R 8JR

* domains * hosting * vps * servers * cloud * backups * _______________________________________________
Gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt mailing list
Gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt at icann.org<mailto:Gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt at icann.org>
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_listinfo_gnso-2Dimpl-2Dthickwhois-2Drt&d=DQMF-g&c=5VD0RTtNlTh3ycd41b3MUw&r=gvEx8xF7ynrYQ7wShqEr-w&m=-USHOFzkn_GygoRPoPSoTapiWOHSoOMj4og5OViLRtY&s=Ok10sW4YZh3-Hb9Rp3Pe4yskamjBOP8LWvUEOC9VyLI&e=>
_______________________________________________
Gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt mailing list
Gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt at icann.org<mailto:Gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt at icann.org>
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_listinfo_gnso-2Dimpl-2Dthickwhois-2Drt&d=DQMF-g&c=5VD0RTtNlTh3ycd41b3MUw&r=gvEx8xF7ynrYQ7wShqEr-w&m=-USHOFzkn_GygoRPoPSoTapiWOHSoOMj4og5OViLRtY&s=Ok10sW4YZh3-Hb9Rp3Pe4yskamjBOP8LWvUEOC9VyLI&e=>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt/attachments/20160816/ffa58a45/attachment.html>