[gnso-rds-pdp-wg] Instead of Less Access to Fewer Data Fields How About More Access to Newer Data Fields

Michele Neylon - Blacknight michele at blacknight.com
Wed May 11 22:17:59 UTC 2016


Welcome to the group.

On 11/05/2016, 22:31, "gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces at icann.org on behalf of Michael D. Palage" <gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces at icann.org on behalf of michael at palage.com> wrote:

>Hello All,
>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,

I assume by “questions” you mean “objections”?
>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.


The .ie ccTLD for example included a WIPO status field up until quite recently. They currently have a field “in-zone”, and those are just two examples I found without any effort.

>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’d have to dig out the report to refresh my memory on what we wrote exactly, but from memory I *think* we spoke in broad terms about possible contact points being collected as an option.

I don’t think we were suggesting that they were either obligatory or that they would be available to everyone ie. published to the public.
I could be wrong ie. have a bad memory though ☺

>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.

Totally agree and in the case of your client they’re talking about something optional, so speaking personally I don’t see any issue with it.
I think it’d be a different matter if you were suggesting that a field was obligatory, but again you’re speaking about a very specific TLD that probably has a very specific registration policy which might limit who can register a domain name in it.



More information about the gnso-rds-pdp-wg mailing list