<html><head></head><body><div style="color:#000; background-color:#fff; font-family:Helvetica Neue, Helvetica, Arial, Lucida Grande, sans-serif;font-size:13px"><div><span>Can blockchain technologies turn thick WHOIS data in registries into authoritative data by reducing the lag time between updates?</span></div><div></div><div> </div><div class="signature" id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1493644138339_238904">Nathalie </div> <div class="qtdSeparateBR"><br><br></div><div class="yahoo_quoted" style="display: block;"> <div style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Helvetica, Arial, Lucida Grande, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;"> <div style="font-family: HelveticaNeue, Helvetica Neue, Helvetica, Arial, Lucida Grande, sans-serif; font-size: 16px;"> <div dir="ltr"><font size="2" face="Arial"> On Monday, May 1, 2017 12:50 PM, Andrew Sullivan <ajs@anvilwalrusden.com> wrote:<br></font></div> <br><br> <div class="y_msg_container">Hi,<br clear="none"><br clear="none">On Mon, May 01, 2017 at 04:42:24PM +0000, Greg Aaron wrote:<br clear="none">> All that is the opposite of what the GNSO's Thick WHOIS PDP recently reasoned.<br clear="none">> <br clear="none">> That PDP said that gTLD registries must be thick, in order to deliver a variety of benefits. That PDP WG also wrote that: "the only authoritative data source can be the registry as it holds the ultimate sway over the data. A registrar updates the data at customer request and is responsible for its accuracy, but such changes would only become authoritative once the registry Whois reflects the change."<br clear="none">> <br clear="none"><br clear="none">The problem with the reasoning there, of course, is that it's both<br clear="none">circular and false. It's circular, in the sense that once you define<br clear="none">the registry as the data authority then by definition data that is<br clear="none">merely at some middleman is not yet authoritative data. So this view<br clear="none">can't function in any premise that the registry is "authoritative".<br clear="none">It's false because someone who is trying to track down what is going<br clear="none">on with some registered object is going to want to contact all of the<br clear="none">parties involved in handling any data, and so the state of the<br clear="none">registrar databases may be important. (Some registrars, of course,<br clear="none">have adopted the mechanism of never using their own database when the<br clear="none">registry is thick -- a good data-handling practice, of course, but one<br clear="none">that has the disadvantage that the registrar's systems are only as<br clear="none">fast as the registry plus network latency.)<br clear="none"><br clear="none">But in any case, I still think all of this discussion shows why we<br clear="none">should avoid the term "authoritative". I feel rather badly that I<br clear="none">stuck on this point in Copenhagen (though I do believe we're better<br clear="none">off to highlight this conceptual confusion now instead of in several<br clear="none">months).<br clear="none"><br clear="none">Best regards,<br clear="none"><br clear="none">A<br clear="none"><br clear="none">-- <br clear="none">Andrew Sullivan<br clear="none"><a shape="rect" ymailto="mailto:ajs@anvilwalrusden.com" href="mailto:ajs@anvilwalrusden.com">ajs@anvilwalrusden.com</a><div class="yqt5548835507" id="yqtfd25042"><br clear="none">_______________________________________________<br clear="none">gnso-rds-pdp-wg mailing list<br clear="none"><a shape="rect" ymailto="mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org" href="mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org">gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org</a><br clear="none"><a shape="rect" href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-wg" target="_blank">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-wg</a><br clear="none"></div><br><br></div> </div> </div> </div></div></body></html>