<html><head><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html charset=windows-1252"></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; "><div>hi all,</div><div><br></div><div>here's the call for volunteers for the Thick Whois working group. i've volunteered to participate in this one, so we're covered. but the more the merrier. :-)</div><div><br></div><div>mikey</div><div><br></div><div><br><div><br><div>Begin forwarded message:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><blockquote type="cite"><div style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px;"><br></div><div style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; font-size: 14px; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; "><div><div id="text-header"><h1>Call for Volunteers: 'thick' Whois Policy Development Process (PDP) Working Group Members</h1></div>
<div id="text-content"><div id="text-content-inner">
<div id="lastupdated">Last Updated: 23 October 2012</div>
<div id="node-35111" class="node">
<div class="content">
<div class="field field-type-date field-field-date2">
<div class="field-items">
<div class="field-item odd">
<div class="field-label-inline-first">
Date: </div>
<span class="date-display-single">23 October 2012</span> </div>
</div>
</div>
<h2>In Brief</h2><div>The Generic Names Supporting Organization (GNSO) Council seeks
volunteers to serve on a Policy Development Process (PDP) Working Group
(WG) that has been chartered to provide the GNSO Council with a policy
recommendation regarding the use of 'thick' Whois by all gTLD
Registries, both existing and future.</div>
<h2>What This Group Will Do</h2><div>As part of its deliberations on this issue, the PDP WG is expected,
at a minimum, to consider the following elements as detailed in the <a href="http://gnso.icann.org/issues/whois/final-report-thick-whois-02feb12-en.pdf">'thick' Whois Final Issue Report</a>:</div>
<ul>
<li>Response consistency: a 'thick' Registry can dictate the labeling
and display of Whois information to be sure the information is easy to
parse, and all Registrars/clients would have to display it accordingly.
This could be considered a benefit but also a potential cost. This might
also be a benefit in the context of internationalized registration data
as even with the use of different scripts, uniform data collection and
display standards could be applied.</li>
<li>Stability: in the event of a Registrar business or technical
failure, it could be beneficial to ICANN and registrants to have the
full set of domain registration contact data stored by four
organizations (the Registry, the Registry's escrow agent, the Registrar,
and the Registrar's escrow agent), which would be the case in a 'thick'
registry.</li>
<li>Accessibility: is the provision of Whois information at the registry
level under the 'thick' Whois model more effective and cost-effective
than a 'thin' model in protecting consumers and users of Whois data and
intellectual property owners?</li>
<li>Impact on privacy and data protection: how would 'thick' Whois
affect privacy and data protection, also taking into account the
involvement of different jurisdictions with different laws and
legislation with regard to data privacy as well as possible cross border
transfers of registrant data?</li>
<li>Cost implications: what are the cost implications of a transition to
'thick' Whois for Registries, Registrars, registrants and other parties
for all gTLDs? Conversely, what are the cost implications to
Registries, Registrars, registrants and other parties if no transition
is mandated?</li>
<li>Synchronization/migration: what would be the impact on the registry
and registrar WHOIS and EPP systems for those Registries currently
operating a thin registry, both in the migration phase to 'thick' WHOIS
as well as ongoing operations?</li>
<li>Authoritativeness: what are the implications of a 'thin' Registry
possibly becoming authoritative for registrant Whois data following the
transition from a thin-registry model to a thick-registry model. The
Working Group should consider the term "authoritative" in both the
technical (the repository of the authoritative data) and policy (who has
authority over the data) meanings of the word when considering this
issue.</li>
<li>Competition in registry services: what would be the impact on
competition in registry services should all Registries be required to
provide Whois service using the 'thick' Whois model – would there be more, less or no difference with regard to competition in registry
services?</li>
<li>Existing Whois Applications: What, if anything, are the potential
impacts on the providers of third-party WHOIS-related applications if
'thick' WHOIS is required for all gtLDs?</li>
<li>Data escrow: 'thick' Whois might obviate the need for the registrar
escrow program and attendant expenses to ICANN and registrars.</li>
<li>Registrar Port 43 Whois requirements: 'thick' Whois could make the
requirement for Registrars to maintain Port 43 Whois access redundant.</li></ul><div>For further details and requirements, see the <a href="https://community.icann.org/x/H4EoAg">WG Charter</a>.</div>
<h2>How This Group Will Work</h2><div>ICANN Working Groups use transparent, open processes. WGs typically
meet once a week by telephone for a minimum of one hour. The meetings of
the WG will be recorded, and the recordings will be available to the
public. The mailing list for the 'thick' Whois PDP WG will be archived
publicly. Working Group members are expected to submit Statements of
Interest (SOI). The group will collaborate using a public workspace. The
WG is expected to follow the <a href="http://gnso.icann.org/council/annex-1-gnso-wg-guidelines-07apr11-en.pdf">GNSO Working Group Guidelines</a>. In addition, the WG is expected to follow the procedures outlined in the <a href="http://gnso.icann.org/council/annex-2-pdp-manual-16dec11-en.pdf">GNSO PDP Manual</a>.</div>
<h2>How to Join</h2><div>The Council invites interested parties to provide names of expected
participants who can then be added to the WG mailing list. The GNSO
Council may also invite stakeholders and experts to join. Community
members who wish to be invited to join the group should contact the <a href="mailto:gnso.secretariat@icann.org?subject=Application%20to%20Join%20%27thick%27%20Whois%20PDP%20Working%20Group">GNSO secretariat</a> (<a href="mailto:gnso.secretariat@icann.org">gnso.secretariat@icann.org</a>).</div>
<h2>Background</h2><div>ICANN specifies Whois service requirements through Registry
Agreements (RAs) and the Registrar Accreditation Agreement (RAA) for the
generic top-level domain (gTLD) registries.</div><div>Registries have historically satisfied their Whois obligations under
two different models. The two models are often characterized as "thin"
and "thick" Whois registries. This distinction is based on how two
distinct sets of data are maintained.</div><div>WHOIS contains two kinds of data about a domain name; one set of data
is associated with the domain name (this information includes data
sufficient to identify the sponsoring registrar, status of the
registration, creation and expiration dates for each registration, name
server data, the last time the record was updated in the Registry
database, and the URL for the registrar's Whois service), and a second
set of data that is associated with the registrant of the domain name.</div><div>In a thin registration model the Registry only collects the
information associated with the domain name from the Registrar. The
Registry in turn publishes that information along with maintaining
certain status information at the Registry level. Registrars maintain
data associated with the registrant of the domain and provide it via
their own Whois services, as required by Section 3.3 of the RAA for
those domains they sponsor.</div><div>In a thick registration model the Registry collects both sets of data
(domain name and registrant) from the Registrar and in turn publishes
that data via Whois.</div><div>As recommended by the Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy (IRTP) Part B
Working Group, the GNSO Council asked ICANN staff to prepare an Issue
Report on the requirement of "thick" Whois for all gTLDs. The Council
requested that the Issue Report and possible subsequent Policy
Development Process consider a possible requirement of "thick" Whois for
all gTLDs in the context of IRTP and also consider any positive and/or
negative effects likely to occur outside of IRTP that should be taken
into account when deciding whether to require "thick" Whois for all
incumbent gTLDs. ICANN staff submitted <a href="http://gnso.icann.org/issues/whois/final-report-thick-whois-02feb12-en.pdf">the Final Issue Report</a> to the GNSO Council for consideration on 2 February 2012.</div><div>At its meeting in Costa Rica last March, the GNSO Council initiated a
Policy Development Process on "thick" Whois. However, considering the
workload of the GNSO community, the GNSO Council on 12 April resolved to
delay the formation of a drafting team to develop a charter until
December 2012. The Council reconsidered that decision at its meeting in
Prague in June 2012, and decided to move forward with the PDP. A
drafting team was formed to develop a charter which was adopted by the
GNSO Council at its meeting on 17 October 2012.</div>
</div></div></div></div></div></div>
</blockquote></div><br><div apple-content-edited="true">
<br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; orphans: 2; text-align: -webkit-auto; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; display: inline !important; float: none; ">PHONE: 651-647-6109, FAX: 866-280-2356, WEB: <a href="http://www.haven2.com">www.haven2.com</a>, HANDLE: OConnorStP (ID for Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn, etc.)</span>
</div>
<br></div></body></html>