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 put in the agreed recommendation, and I suggest that we put in the explanatory text above.<br><br>Kind regards<br><br>Emily<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On 2 December 2011 18:28, Omar Kaminski <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:omar@kaminski.adv.br">omar@kaminski.adv.br</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;">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>>:<br>
<div class="HOEnZb"><div class="h5">> 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>
><br>
<br>
</div></div><div class="HOEnZb"><div class="h5">_______________________________________________<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><br>
</div></div></blockquote></div><br><br clear="all"><br>-- <br><br><br><span style="color:rgb(153, 51, 153)"></span> <img src="http://www.etlaw.co.uk/images/stories/etlaw/etclogo250x60.gif"><br><br><div style="margin-left:80px">
<u style="color:rgb(204, 51, 204)"> </u><br style="color:rgb(153, 51, 153)"><br><span style="color:rgb(153, 153, 153)">76 Temple Road, Oxford OX4 2EZ UK</span><br style="color:rgb(153, 153, 153)">
<span style="color:rgb(153, 153, 153)">t: +44 (0)1865 582 811 • m: +44 (0)7540 049 322</span><br style="color:rgb(153, 153, 153)"><span style="color:rgb(153, 153, 153)"><a href="mailto:emily@emilytaylor.eu" target="_blank">emily@emilytaylor.eu</a> </span><br style="color:rgb(153, 153, 153)">
<br style="color:rgb(153, 153, 153)"><b style="color:rgb(153, 153, 153)"><a href="http://www.etlaw.co.uk" target="_blank">www.etlaw.co.uk</a></b><br style="color:rgb(153, 153, 153)"><br style="color:rgb(153, 153, 153)"><span style="color:rgb(153, 153, 153)">Emily Taylor Consultancy Limited is a company registered in England and Wales No. 730471. VAT No. 114487713.</span><br>
</div><br>