<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=windows-1252"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<p>It really depends.</p>
<p>The German trade register is authoritative in the latter sence
since it can be relied upon by third parties, because there is
legislation makes it authoritative in that sense.</p>
<p>As a registrar, I do not check the whois for determining the
ownership of a domain we manage, I check our own internal data
(unless the registry allows direct modification by the
registrant). <br>
</p>
<p>There certainly is no legislation making the registry or the RDS
output legally authoritative.<br>
</p>
<p>And as for closeness to the source, nothing beats the registrar
(or his resellers).</p>
<p>Best,</p>
<p>Volker<br>
</p>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">Am 02.05.2017 um 16:04 schrieb Greg
Aaron:<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:BN6PR13MB1843286F957D3B24336D6698D9170@BN6PR13MB1843.namprd13.prod.outlook.com"
type="cite">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;
charset=windows-1252">
<meta name="Generator" content="Microsoft Word 15 (filtered
medium)">
<style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:Wingdings;
panose-1:5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0;}
@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math";
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Consolas;
panose-1:2 11 6 9 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:purple;
text-decoration:underline;}
pre
{mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:"HTML Preformatted Char";
margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Courier New";}
span.HTMLPreformattedChar
{mso-style-name:"HTML Preformatted Char";
mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:"HTML Preformatted";
font-family:Consolas;}
p.msonormal0, li.msonormal0, div.msonormal0
{mso-style-name:msonormal;
mso-margin-top-alt:auto;
margin-right:0in;
mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;
margin-left:0in;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;}
span.EmailStyle20
{mso-style-type:personal;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:windowtext;}
span.EmailStyle21
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:windowtext;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-size:10.0pt;}
@page WordSection1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
/* List Definitions */
@list l0
{mso-list-id:987318203;
mso-list-template-ids:815069806;}
@list l0:level1
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:\F0B7;
mso-level-tab-stop:.5in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Symbol;}
@list l0:level2
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:\F0B7;
mso-level-tab-stop:1.0in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Symbol;}
@list l0:level3
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:\F0B7;
mso-level-tab-stop:1.5in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Symbol;}
@list l0:level4
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:\F0B7;
mso-level-tab-stop:2.0in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Symbol;}
@list l0:level5
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:\F0B7;
mso-level-tab-stop:2.5in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Symbol;}
@list l0:level6
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:\F0B7;
mso-level-tab-stop:3.0in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Symbol;}
@list l0:level7
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:\F0B7;
mso-level-tab-stop:3.5in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Symbol;}
@list l0:level8
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:\F0B7;
mso-level-tab-stop:4.0in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Symbol;}
@list l0:level9
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:\F0B7;
mso-level-tab-stop:4.5in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Symbol;}
@list l1
{mso-list-id:1203253106;
mso-list-template-ids:-1269284288;}
@list l1:level1
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:?;
mso-level-tab-stop:.5in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Symbol;}
@list l1:level2
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:o;
mso-level-tab-stop:1.0in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Courier New";
mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman";}
@list l1:level3
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:?;
mso-level-tab-stop:1.5in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Wingdings;}
@list l1:level4
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:?;
mso-level-tab-stop:2.0in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Wingdings;}
@list l1:level5
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:?;
mso-level-tab-stop:2.5in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Wingdings;}
@list l1:level6
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:?;
mso-level-tab-stop:3.0in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Wingdings;}
@list l1:level7
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:?;
mso-level-tab-stop:3.5in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Wingdings;}
@list l1:level8
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:?;
mso-level-tab-stop:4.0in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Wingdings;}
@list l1:level9
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:?;
mso-level-tab-stop:4.5in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Wingdings;}
ol
{margin-bottom:0in;}
ul
{margin-bottom:0in;}
--></style><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]-->
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal"><a moz-do-not-send="true"
name="_MailEndCompose"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">Dear
Paul:<o:p></o:p></span></a></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-bookmark:_MailEndCompose"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif"><o:p> </o:p></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-bookmark:_MailEndCompose"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">Hi.
I suggest the latter. A registry contains data that is
considered an official record. <o:p></o:p></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-bookmark:_MailEndCompose"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif"><o:p> </o:p></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-bookmark:_MailEndCompose"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">As I
mentioned, accuracy is a related but separate issue. And
bogus contact data is inaccurate no matter where it sits –
at the registry or at the registrar. <o:p></o:p></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-bookmark:_MailEndCompose"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif"><o:p> </o:p></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-bookmark:_MailEndCompose"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">Other
than contact data, the data in registries is accurate.
Registries are the only place that records,
authoritatively and accurately, what domains exist, what
time each domain was entered into the registry and the
term (and therefore the expiration date), the registrar of
record, etc. They accurately record what nameservers a
registrar designates for a domain, and because the
registry is authoritative for that data those nameservers
are the only ones the domain will resolve to.<o:p></o:p></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-bookmark:_MailEndCompose"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif"><o:p> </o:p></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-bookmark:_MailEndCompose"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">And
registries accurately record what contact data the
registrar placed on the record. That contact data
</span></span><span style="mso-bookmark:_MailEndCompose"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black">may
be inaccurate (even patently false), but it’s what’s on
the official record, and from a legal perspective that has
consequences.
</span></span><span style="mso-bookmark:_MailEndCompose"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif"><o:p></o:p></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-bookmark:_MailEndCompose"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif"><o:p> </o:p></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-bookmark:_MailEndCompose"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">I am
not sure what you mean when you say “</span></span><span
style="mso-bookmark:_MailEndCompose"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black">there
must be some verification process as between the registry
and registrars. It is my understanding that this already
exists”. The registrars have some data accuracy
responsibilities as spelled out in the RAA, but how much
accuracy they deliver is a separate conversation. At this
time gTLD registries don’t verify the accuracy
(truthfulness) of contact data that registrars put into
the registry. Although some ccTLD registries (like .UK)
have some checks.
<o:p></o:p></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-bookmark:_MailEndCompose"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black"><o:p> </o:p></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-bookmark:_MailEndCompose"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">All
best,<o:p></o:p></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-bookmark:_MailEndCompose"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">--Greg<o:p></o:p></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-bookmark:_MailEndCompose"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif"><o:p> </o:p></span></span></p>
<span style="mso-bookmark:_MailEndCompose"></span>
<div>
<div style="border:none;border-top:solid #E1E1E1
1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in">
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">From:</span></b><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">
Paul Keating [<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="mailto:Paul@law.es">mailto:Paul@law.es</a>]
<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Tuesday, May 2, 2017 6:29 AM<br>
<b>To:</b> Greg Aaron <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:gca@icginc.com"><gca@icginc.com></a>; David Cake
<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:dave@davecake.net"><dave@davecake.net></a>; Sam Lanfranco
<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:sam@lanfranco.net"><sam@lanfranco.net></a><br>
<b>Cc:</b> <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org">gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org</a><br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [gnso-rds-pdp-wg] authoritative<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black">Greg,<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black">I
want to make sure I am not confused.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black">By
“Authoritative” are we meaning that <o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black">the
data is most accurate (closest to the source) <o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black">OR<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black">That
it is the one to be relied upon regardless of how close it
is/was to the originating source.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black">If
it is the former, then (a) it will originate at the
registrar and (b) we must accept that it may or may not
remember the truth (e.g. Be actually correct info as
opposed to whatever the registrant provided).<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black">If
the registries are to one the authoritative source then
there must be some verification process as between the
registry and registrars. It is my understanding that this
already exists and that we were historically dealing with
thin WHOIS as a result of historical structure of the
original registry (which was at the time also a
registrar). The other registrars did not want Verisign to
have information about their customers for competitive
reasons.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black">And,
of course for the purposes of the various privacy rules,
it is the registrar as the collecting agent that must deal
with the consent/permission issues relative to collection
and use.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black">My
thoughts anyway.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black">Paul
Keating<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div style="border:none;border-top:solid #B5C4DF
1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in">
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black">From:
</span></b><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black"><</span><a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org</span></a><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black">>
on behalf of Greg Aaron <</span><a
moz-do-not-send="true" href="mailto:gca@icginc.com"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">gca@icginc.com</span></a><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black">><br>
<b>Date: </b>Monday, May 1, 2017 at 6:42 PM<br>
<b>To: </b>David Cake <</span><a
moz-do-not-send="true" href="mailto:dave@davecake.net"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">dave@davecake.net</span></a><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black">>,
Sam Lanfranco <</span><a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:sam@lanfranco.net"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">sam@lanfranco.net</span></a><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black">><br>
<b>Cc: </b>"</span><a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org</span></a><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black">"
<</span><a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org</span></a><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black">><br>
<b>Subject: </b>Re: [gnso-rds-pdp-wg] authoritative<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
</div>
<blockquote style="border:none;border-left:solid #B5C4DF
4.5pt;padding:0in 0in 0in
4.0pt;margin-left:3.75pt;margin-top:5.0pt;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:5.0pt"
id="MAC_OUTLOOK_ATTRIBUTION_BLOCKQUOTE">
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black">I
think Sam and Scott are saying is that contact (thick)
data in registries should never be relied upon. And
since it can't, the logical conclusion is that we
might as well return to thin registries, in which
contact data is held only at registrars. In such a
paradigm an RDS system could retrieve contact data for
you from the distributed registrars, but there's no
reason to store it in registries.
</span><span style="color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black"> </span><span
style="color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black">All
that is the opposite of what the GNSO's Thick WHOIS
PDP recently reasoned.</span><span style="color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black"> </span><span
style="color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black">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."</span><span
style="color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black"> </span><span
style="color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black">Below
is the relevant section of The Thick WHOIS PDP final
report. As always, our WG should avail itself of
previous work on relevant issues -- so we don't
reinvent the wheel when we don't have to, and we don't
throw out good policy when we don't have to. Our WG
should examine the Thick WHOIS PDP's reasoning, and I
suggest that a deviation from it should be
compelling.
</span><span style="color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black"> </span><span
style="color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black">I
have been using the meaning of "authoritative" that
the PDP did below. David Cake, the below helps
explain why the issue is important. As I said before,
the validation of contact data -- whether it is
truthful and accurate -- is a related but separate
issue.</span><span style="color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black"> </span><span
style="color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://gnso.icann.org/en/issues/whois/thick-final-21oct13-en.pdf"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">https://gnso.icann.org/en/issues/whois/thick-final-21oct13-en.pdf</span></a><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black">
</span><span style="color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black">“Issue
Description</span><span style="color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black">Here
is the working definition used by the WG while
analysing this issue: "Authoritative, with respect to
provision of Whois services, shall be interpreted as
to signify the single database within a hierarchical
database structure holding the data that is assumed to
be the final authority regarding the question of which
record shall be considered accurate and reliable in
case of conflicting records; administered by a single
administrative [agent] and consisting of data provided
by the registrants of record through their
registrars." A proposed shorter version is "the data
set to be relied upon in case of doubt".</span><span
style="color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black"> </span><span
style="color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black">Authoritativeness
in a thin Whois environment</span><span
style="color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black">Since
the registrar alone holds most Whois data, its data is
necessarily authoritative as to those data elements
(e.g., name of registrant). For that data held by both
registrar and registry (e.g., name of registrar), it
appears that registry data is generally treated as
authoritative, but the WG is not aware of any official
ICANN policy statement on this. The WG observes that
in the case of the Uniform Dispute Resolution Policy
(UDRP), UDRP Providers treat the registrar Whois
information as authoritative, which may be the result
of the UDRP having been adopted prior to the emergence
of thick gTLD registries.</span><span
style="color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black"> </span><span
style="color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black">Authoritativeness
in a thick Whois environment</span><span
style="color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black">Most
comments that addressed this question stated that
registry data is considered authoritative in the thick
environment. Only one stated that the registrar data
was authoritative. Again, the WG is not aware of any
official ICANN policy statement on this question. The
WG notes that the registrar remains responsible for
the accuracy of the data under either the thick or
thin model, as the relationship with the registrant
remains with the registrar.</span><span
style="color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black"> </span><span
style="color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black">Possible
advantages for authoritativeness in a thick Whois
environment</span><span style="color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black">Several
comments cited efficiency and trust as advantages of
treating the registry Whois data as authoritative. The
WG supports the view that the registry will hold the
entire data set, and is able to change the data
without informing the registrar (due to closed court
orders or similar events). Therefore, 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.</span><span style="color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black"> </span><span
style="color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black">Possible
downsides for authoritativeness in a thick Whois
environment</span><span style="color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black">Several
comments noted that registrars remain responsible for
collecting the data and (to an extent governed by
contract with ICANN) for its accuracy. One
contribution felt this was inconsistent with a
conclusion that registry Whois would be authoritative
in the thick environment. The WG did not agree that
this inconsistency was problematic (primarily on the
grounds stated above that the WG that any data
collected by the registrar becomes authoritative only
after it is incorporated in the registry database).</span><span
style="color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black"> </span><span
style="color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black">Conclusion</span><span
style="color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black">The
WG finds that a transition from thin to thick Whois
will have no detrimental effect on authoritativeness.
The WG reviewed the question as to whether it is
necessary for this WG to recommend a policy on this
issue. Based on that review, the WG has concluded that
this is not necessary, given that thick registries
have functioned for many years without requiring a
formal position on authoritativeness, and the lack of
evidence that this created any problem during previous
thin-to-thick transitions such as .org."</span><span
style="color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black"> </span><span
style="color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black">It
falls to our RDS WG to create additional policy on
this issue. I think that the logical policy is for
registries to be thick, and 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.</span><span style="color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black"> </span><span
style="color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black">All
best,</span><span style="color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black">--Greg</span><span
style="color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black"> </span><span
style="color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black"> </span><span
style="color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black"> </span><span
style="color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<div>
<div style="border:none;border-top:solid #E1E1E1
1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in">
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black">From:</span></b><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black">
</span><a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org</span></a><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black">
[</span><a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org</span></a><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black">]
<b>On Behalf Of </b>David Cake<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Monday, May 1, 2017 11:55 AM<br>
<b>To:</b> Sam Lanfranco <</span><a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:sam@lanfranco.net"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">sam@lanfranco.net</span></a><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black">><br>
<b>Cc:</b> </span><a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org</span></a><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black"><br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [gnso-rds-pdp-wg]
authoritative</span><span style="color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black"> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black">While I
have no objection in the abstract to authoritative
being used on the sense of ‘according to some
recognised authority’, I’m not sure that is relevant
to our discussions.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black">I’m not
aware of any external authority.that are discussing
here, mostly it we were talking about validation it
was validation against a process (such as ensuring
email was valid) rather than validation <o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black">to an
external authority. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black"> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black">I still
believe that this sense of authoritative is NOT the
same as the sense in which we origioonally used the
rm within the requirements, and which prompted the
current discussion, which is the data theoretic
sense loosely congruent to the way the term is used
within the DNS - which is to say, the best source of
data *internal* to the system. An authoritative data
source in that sense would be e.g. the registry
direct, rather than a cache or by a proxy. And the
ongoing confusion keeps bringing me back to you
wanting to avoid the term if we can’t keep
definitions straight for 5 minutes. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black"> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black">David<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black"> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<blockquote
style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black">On
1 May 2017, at 8:56 pm, Sam Lanfranco <</span><a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:sam@lanfranco.net">sam@lanfranco.net</a><span
style="color:black">> wrote:<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black"> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span
style="color:black">From Paul Keating's
posting and in terms of my comments:<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<ul type="disc">
<li class="MsoNormal"
style="color:black;mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;margin-left:0in;mso-list:l1
level1 lfo3">
here the adjective "authoritative" would not
not mean "recognized as true, valid"
<o:p></o:p></li>
<li class="MsoNormal"
style="color:black;mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;margin-left:0in;mso-list:l1
level1 lfo3">
here the adjective "authoritative" would
mean "official, authorized"<o:p></o:p></li>
</ul>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black">The
best that can be done here is to have
official, authorized, Data of Record from a
Source of Record.<br>
The struggle for data quality is an ongoing
struggle, here, everywhere, and always.
<br>
<br>
What the Data of Record data set consists
of, and build with a sensitivity to purpose,
seems to me to be the main rds-pdp-wg task
here.<br>
<br>
As to who has access to what and under what
terms, ICANN might set some terms there, but
ultimately ICANN,<br>
as a stakeholder there will play an advisory
role. National and multilateral policies
will rule above ICANN policy.
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span
style="color:black">Sam L.
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black"><br>
<br>
<br>
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black">_______________________________________________<br>
gnso-rds-pdp-wg mailing list<br>
</span><a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org">gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org</a><span
style="color:black"><br>
</span><a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-wg">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-wg</a><span
style="color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black"> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black">_______________________________________________
gnso-rds-pdp-wg mailing list
</span><a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org"><span
style="font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org</span></a><span
style="font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black">
</span><a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-wg"><span
style="font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-wg</span></a><span
style="font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</blockquote>
</div>
<br>
<fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
<br>
<pre wrap="">_______________________________________________
gnso-rds-pdp-wg mailing list
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org">gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-wg">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-wg</a></pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">--
Bei weiteren Fragen stehen wir Ihnen gerne zur Verfügung.
Mit freundlichen Grüßen,
Volker A. Greimann
- Rechtsabteilung -
Key-Systems GmbH
Im Oberen Werk 1
66386 St. Ingbert
Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901
Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851
Email: <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net">vgreimann@key-systems.net</a>
Web: <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="http://www.key-systems.net">www.key-systems.net</a> / <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="http://www.RRPproxy.net">www.RRPproxy.net</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="http://www.domaindiscount24.com">www.domaindiscount24.com</a> / <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="http://www.BrandShelter.com">www.BrandShelter.com</a>
Folgen Sie uns bei Twitter oder werden Sie unser Fan bei Facebook:
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="http://www.facebook.com/KeySystems">www.facebook.com/KeySystems</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="http://www.twitter.com/key_systems">www.twitter.com/key_systems</a>
Geschäftsführer: Alexander Siffrin
Handelsregister Nr.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken
Umsatzsteuer ID.: DE211006534
Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="http://www.keydrive.lu">www.keydrive.lu</a>
Der Inhalt dieser Nachricht ist vertraulich und nur für den angegebenen Empfänger bestimmt. Jede Form der Kenntnisgabe, Veröffentlichung oder Weitergabe an Dritte durch den Empfänger ist unzulässig. Sollte diese Nachricht nicht für Sie bestimmt sein, so bitten wir Sie, sich mit uns per E-Mail oder telefonisch in Verbindung zu setzen.
--------------------------------------------
Should you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact us.
Best regards,
Volker A. Greimann
- legal department -
Key-Systems GmbH
Im Oberen Werk 1
66386 St. Ingbert
Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901
Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851
Email: <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net">vgreimann@key-systems.net</a>
Web: <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="http://www.key-systems.net">www.key-systems.net</a> / <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="http://www.RRPproxy.net">www.RRPproxy.net</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="http://www.domaindiscount24.com">www.domaindiscount24.com</a> / <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="http://www.BrandShelter.com">www.BrandShelter.com</a>
Follow us on Twitter or join our fan community on Facebook and stay updated:
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="http://www.facebook.com/KeySystems">www.facebook.com/KeySystems</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="http://www.twitter.com/key_systems">www.twitter.com/key_systems</a>
CEO: Alexander Siffrin
Registration No.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken
V.A.T. ID.: DE211006534
Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="http://www.keydrive.lu">www.keydrive.lu</a>
This e-mail and its attachments is intended only for the person to whom it is addressed. Furthermore it is not permitted to publish any content of this email. You must not use, disclose, copy, print or rely on this e-mail. If an addressing or transmission error has misdirected this e-mail, kindly notify the author by replying to this e-mail or contacting us by telephone.
</pre>
</body>
</html>