<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40">
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=us-ascii">
<meta name="Generator" content="Microsoft Word 14 (filtered medium)">
<!--[if !mso]><style>v\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
o\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
w\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
.shape {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
</style><![endif]--><style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@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:Tahoma;
panose-1:2 11 6 4 3 5 4 4 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0cm;
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;}
span.EmailStyle17
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
mso-fareast-language:EN-US;}
@page WordSection1
{size:612.0pt 792.0pt;
margin:2.0cm 42.5pt 2.0cm 3.0cm;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></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]-->
</head>
<body lang="RU" link="blue" vlink="purple">
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">Dear colleagues,<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">I think
<span style="background:yellow;mso-highlight:yellow">this i</span>s the best solution.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">Rgds,<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">Michael<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"">From:</span></b><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif""> rt4-whois-bounces@icann.org [mailto:rt4-whois-bounces@icann.org]
<b>On Behalf Of </b>Emily Taylor<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Friday, December 02, 2011 9:57 PM<br>
<b>To:</b> Omar Kaminski<br>
<b>Cc:</b> rt4-whois<br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [Rt4-whois] No agreement on Lutz's recommendations [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED]<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt">Oh dear, just when we thought it was safe to go out.<br>
<br>
We are out of time for this kind of debate. I am certainly not going to hold up publication of the report on this issue.
<br>
<br>
We agreed a recommendation limited to thin WHOIS, and I believe that the way to go given these exchanges is the solution Peter suggested last night: we can preface it by a line or two of text saying a number of team members believe that there would be no reason
not to expand a neutral, combined look-up to other TLDs in time, but we have consensus for thin WHOIS.<br>
<br>
I will <span style="background:yellow;mso-highlight:yellow">put in the agreed recommendation, and I suggest that we put in the explanatory text above.</span><br>
<br>
Kind regards<br>
<br>
Emily<o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">On 2 December 2011 18:28, Omar Kaminski <<a href="mailto:omar@kaminski.adv.br">omar@kaminski.adv.br</a>> wrote:<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Completely agree with Lynn about the "mistery" (from the common user<br>
point of view) that envolves a Whois query (and let's forget the<br>
predictive confusion between gTLDs and ccTLDs).<br>
<br>
A good way to see the situation in perspective is to put "whois" on<br>
Google and check the results: they attend the users needs?<br>
<br>
BTW, in Brazil we have a project of law on House of Representatives<br>
that imposes the need to show the site owner's data. Consumer trust, I<br>
must say. In other hand, how to supervise thousands, millions of<br>
sites?<br>
<br>
Omar<br>
<br>
<br>
2011/12/2 <<a href="mailto:lynn@goodsecurityconsulting.com">lynn@goodsecurityconsulting.com</a>>:<o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt">> Perhaps it is because we have had an intense week trying to wrap this up.<br>
> But I thought Lutz had submitted this recommendation some time ago. And on<br>
> the last conference call, he clarified that<br>
> this was not a centralized database but rather a centralized interface. And<br>
> his recommendation referenced the consumer research study which<br>
> I also called out and acknowledged the linkage. So it is also a surprise to<br>
> me that we are not all in ageement.<br>
><br>
> From my perspective, this is not about Thick or Thin Whois data. It is<br>
> about alleviatng the difficulties that absolutely everyone encounters in<br>
> doing<br>
> Whois lookups. For those of us involved in the domain name industry, we are<br>
> more familiar with navigating. But I have to say it is cumbersome and<br>
> usually requires several steps to find the registrant information.<br>
> Lynn<br>
><br>
><br>
> -------- Original Message --------<br>
> Subject: Re: [Rt4-whois] No agreement on Lutz's recommendations<br>
> [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED]<br>
> From: Kathy Kleiman <<a href="mailto:kathy@kathykleiman.com">kathy@kathykleiman.com</a>><br>
> Date: Fri, December 02, 2011 11:39 am<br>
> To: <a href="mailto:rt4-whois@icann.org">rt4-whois@icann.org</a><br>
><br>
> Completely disagree guys, and am writing an extensive message. I have to say<br>
> that two days after we were due to report out, I am<br>
> surprised/concerned/upset to be debating substantive policy matters.<br>
><br>
> But the fact is that the idea of Thick WHOIS database for existing thin<br>
> registries (and all, there are Four of them, have we ever discussed that<br>
> fact?) is **already being debated**. They recognize that there may be<br>
> intended and possibly considerable unintended consequences of the process.<br>
> Am reviewing their work and will share shortly.<br>
><br>
> Suffice to say, I think we have leapt headlong into policy... Kathy<br>
><br>
> << Yes - there is not a difference in privacy by implementing a centralized<br>
> interface to all the existing Whois pages. All the interface does is<br>
> provide a single point of access to the same data versus multiple points of<br>
> access (that would still be functional).<br>
><br>
> Lynn<br>
><br>
><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">_______________________________________________<br>
Rt4-whois mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Rt4-whois@icann.org">Rt4-whois@icann.org</a><br>
<a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/rt4-whois" target="_blank">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/rt4-whois</a><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt"><br>
<br clear="all">
<br>
-- <br>
<br>
<br>
<span style="border:solid windowtext 1.0pt;padding:0cm"><img border="0" width="100" height="100" id="Picture_x0020_1" src="cid:~WRD000.jpg" alt="Description: Image removed by sender."></span><o:p></o:p></p>
<div style="margin-left:60.0pt">
<p class="MsoNormal"><u><span style="color:#CC33CC">
</span></u><span style="color:#993399"><br>
</span><br>
<span style="color:#999999">76 Temple Road, Oxford OX4 2EZ UK<br>
t: +44 (0)1865 582 811 • m: +44 (0)7540 049 322<br>
<a href="mailto:emily@emilytaylor.eu" target="_blank">emily@emilytaylor.eu</a> <br>
<br>
<b><a href="http://www.etlaw.co.uk" target="_blank">www.etlaw.co.uk</a></b><br>
<br>
Emily Taylor Consultancy Limited is a company registered in England and Wales No. 730471. VAT No. 114487713.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
</body>
</html>