[gnso-rds-pdp-wg] Instead of Less Access to Fewer Data Fields How About More Access to Newer Data Fields
Michael D. Palage
michael at palage.com
Wed May 11 21:31:10 UTC 2016
I joined the WG a couple of weeks ago and I have been quiet as I try to get
up to speed. One of the reasons that I joined this WG is a Registry Client
recently submitted an RSEP to ICANN seeking to add additional data fields to
the Whois/RDDS output. To date four other registries have been permitted to
include additional data fields .NYC (Nexus Contact Info) &
.CAPETOWN/.JOBURG/.DURBAN (Reseller Contact Info).
However, in the pre-evaluation ICANN raised questions about this RSEP citing
the "purpose" of Whois based upon the following 2006 GNSO Resolution,
The data field my Registry Client is seeking to add is not an additional
contact field (i.e. name, address, telephone, email, etc.). It is a data
new data field associated with the registrant. The registrant would be
permitted per the RSEP to withhold this data from the Whois/RDDS output if
they like, but my Registry Client believes that most registrants would want
the additional data field published. I view this as an innovative service
and one of the reasons why the whole new gTLD program was undertaken.
Now when you look at RFC 7485 you can see there have been a wide range of
additional data fields that have been included in other TLD Whois outputs.
In fact ICANN's Whois EWG on Page 51 thru 56 of their final report
specifically referenced additional fields such as SMS, Social Media Primary,
Social Media Secondary, etc.
I appreciate the strongly held beliefs of some of the participants within
this working group. While I appreciate that many of these battle lines are
based upon historic/legacy approaches to Whois data fields, I guess my
hope/desire is that we do not throw out the baby with bath water in
connection with some innovative features that some Registry Operators would
like to try.
More information about the gnso-rds-pdp-wg