[Gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt] [for iRT review] Draft Thick Whois Transition Policy for .COM, .NET, and .JOBS

[Roger D Carney]

Good Afternoon,

Thanks to staff for putting this together and giving the IRT time to review.

Here are my initial comments on the draft:

·         Definition of Thick (Registration) – though probably accurate, it seems clunky and may be better stated similar to the definition of Thin.

·         Section 2.2 – I thought we agreed to remove the bulk option language.

·         Section 2.10 – We need to add verbiage that allows these fields to remain optional indefinitely for existing registrations.

·         Section 3.1 – I don’t like the starting date, as it reads Registrars must start the transition this date, which will not be what happens in practice. Some registrars may start on this date but many will start at a later date when their systems are ready. Additionally I wonder if we need to tweak the language “required fields of Existing Domain Names that are available in the Registrar database” to list the three required fields and something like “and any other relevant contact data the Registrar has available in their database”.

·         Section 3.4 – This section should be removed as this is already required in the RDAP Profile and COM/NET/JOBS are grandfathered until the transition has been completed February 1 2019 (e.g. section 3.5).

·         Section 3.5 – I think this needs to be specific to COM/NET/JOBS so that it ties more succinctly into the RDAP Profile.

That’s all I have for now.


Thanks
Roger



From: gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt-bounces at icann.org [mailto:gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Dennis Chang
Sent: Thursday, September 01, 2016 7:06 PM
To: gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt at icann.org
Subject: [Gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt] [for iRT review] Draft Thick Whois Transition Policy for .COM, .NET, and .JOBS

Dear Thick Whois Policy Implementation Review Team,

Attached for your review is our initial draft of the Thick Whois Transition Policy for .COM, .NET and .JOBS. The draft Policy includes the various elements discussed in our recent meeting on this topic.

As you review the draft, you will find bracketed text in four sections: sections 2.9, 2.10, 3.4 and 3.5. These sections are bracketed because they reference the Registry Registration Data Directory Services Consistent Labeling and Display Policy and the Registration Data Access Protocol gTLD Profile. As you may be aware, a Request for Reconsideration (RfR) was submitted by the Registries Stakeholder Group in August regarding the Registry Registration Data Directory Services Consistent Labeling and Display Policy<https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/rdds-labeling-policy-2016-07-26-en> that was published on 26 July 2016. The RfR objects to the inclusion of RDAP in the Consensus Policy. While the RfR goes through its own process, we thought it was important to continue progressing the implementation project with the goal of opening Public Comment in September and announcing the Transition Policy by 1 February 2017 per our schedule. Therefore, the text is bracketed as it may need to be revisited pending the resolution of the RfR and we wanted to directly call the IRT’s attention to it.

We will review all contents of the document at our next IRT meeting as a team but please provide your comments in advance via email if possible.

Thank you for your support!

—
Kind Regards,
Dennis S. Chang
GDD Services & Engagement Program Director
+1 213 293 7889
Skype: dennisSchang
www.icann.org<http://www.icann.org>   "One World, One Internet"

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt/attachments/20160906/f19495fa/attachment-0001.html>