<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
Hi All,<br>
I'll share my views, but also with a tired sigh having spent so much
of the last few days editing (the part of the report task I thought
we were on). So there is much more to share, but I will give you the
highlights, at least in my mind.<br>
<br>
<u>Findings</u><br>
1. We promised to derive all of our recommendations based on
findings. In this case, the findings are:<br>
A. We have a findability problem with some thin registries - our
qualitative survey showed that people are having trouble finding the
registrars for .COM domain names; we have some confirmation of this
problem in the comments as well.<br>
B. We have no findability problem with thick registries. In fact,
the opposite is true. We have pointed to thick registries as the
models of what we want to see in Whois databases, and applauded the
New gTLD Guidebook for making the thick registry the model for all
new gTLDs.<br>
C. We may not even have a findability problem with two thin
registries that we have never discussed, .JOBS and .NAME. <br>
<br>
<u>Concerns<br>
</u>D. This recommendation arose after MDR and Dakar. We have never
- in person- talked about, worked through, or debated in person the
wording of this recommendation. It did not arise until recently,
even as we were finishing the chapters. Except in the last few days,
even as some of us were working hard on the report format, footnotes
and cross-references.<br>
<br>
E.It does not seem correlated at all to our findings. We found a
problem with .COM findability -- and documented it.<br>
<br>
F. Most importantly, We have not checked for other work going on.
Parallel work in other areas, e.g., consumer trust, is something we
spoke a lot about. Here too, there is parallel work, but we have
done no research into in. In fact, there is an issues report and
public comment in play on this very issue. <br>
<br>
In fact, there are other proceedings going on and a fascinating
recent report from the IRTP just out that is looking at a thick
database for .COM and .NET for registration transfer purposes (and
we can, of course, see many other benefits to that. In a proceeding
now open, they are asking the very questions we should have as well:<br>
<br>
<i>Background</i><br>
<b>Here's what I wrote in our Report's Policy Chapter:</b><br>
==> "Although the .COM and .NET WHOIS models have remained
unchanged for 11 years, there are some recommendations underway
within the GNSO asking the community to consider the value of moving
thin registries to a “thick WHOIS” model. Published on November 22,
2011, the comments ask the Community what “positive and/or negative
effects” may arise from such a change.[footnote] As this evaluation
is now taking place, it is not an existing policy which the Review
Team could evaluate. However, we note the proceeding could lead to
significant changes in the area."<br>
<br>
<b>Here's the IRTP's Recommendation #3: </b><br>
==> "The WG recommends requesting an Issues Report on the
requirement of ‘thick’ WHOIS for all incumbent gTLDs. The benefit
would be that in a thick registry one could develop a secure method
for a gaining registrar to gain access to the registrant contact
information. Currently there is no standard means for the secure
exchange of registrant details in a thin registry. In this scenario,
disputes between the registrant and admin contact could be reduced,
as the registrant would become the ultimate approver of a transfer.
Such an Issue Report and possible subsequent Policy Development
Process should not only consider a possible requirement of 'thick'
WHOIS for all incumbent gTLDs in the context of IRTP, but should <b>also
consider any other positive and/or negative effects that are
likely to occur outside of IRTP that would need to be taken into
account when deciding whether a requirement of 'thick' WHOIS for
all incumbent gTLDs would be desirable or not."<br>
<br>
</b>Called the <b>Preliminary Issue Report on‘Thick’ Whois, and
recently issues, </b>ICANN staff explored some of these issues
and has put a public notice out to the community to participate in
the assessment of positive and negative effects of changes to the
thin registries. Up for public comment now on the ICANN website <b>(btw,
all, a key flag raised on this before the IRTP was privacy, and
input on this issue is expected in the public comments).</b><br>
<br>
<b>G. Can we even mandate a multilingual interface when, to the best
of our knowledge, it does not even exist?</b><u> </u>(Did I miss
something in our great IDN analysis/chapter?)<br>
<br>
H. Overall, we have ventured into an area we have not discussed in
detail, even among ourselves, and frankly with the registries,
registrars and Community who would be impacted. It's a policy change
that we are suggesting - a detailed technical move - and it last
minute. I am very concerned. <b><br>
</b><u><br>
<br>
Conclusions<br>
<br>
</u>I thoroughly recommend at this point that we don't take make any
recommendation in this area. There is simply to much we don't know,
and too much underway that we have not even tried to look at. <br>
<br>
Should we decide it is critical to move forward, we should not
recommend a technical solution, but allow ICANN to find it,
consistent with other proceeding. As Peter says, let's open this up
for input. <br>
<br>
<b><i></i></b><u>So here is the recommendation, if we have to make
one at all: <br>
</u><br>
** ==> To make the Whois data of .COM and .NET more accessible to
those who seek it, the Review Team recommends that the ICANN Board
direct an effort to facilitate easier access to the thick Whois data
of .COM and .NET. This effort should coordinate with existing
discussions within the GNSO of a Thick Whois database for existing
thin registries and aim for a multilingual interface when
technologically feasible. <br>
<br>
<br>
From Emily: <br>
Thank you for these constructive ideas. Apologies for my mistake on
this one. I would like Kathy's view on the proposed wording before
any sign offing this as I am aware it is something on which she has
previously raised comments. Peter I think you meant thin registries
didn't you? That would be a more accurate and precise version of
what we agreed. This another one where (I think) we are all agreed
on a minimum which in my view would represent a real step forward.
What there is not consensus on is how far or whether such a look-up
could or should be expanded. If is not already clear in the text we
should find a way of expressing clearly that our proposal should not
necessitate any transfer of databases, escrow or similar. It is
simply a single look up point. Sent from my iPhone
On 2 Dec 2011, at 07:35, Lutz Donnerhacke <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:lutz@iks-jena.de"><lutz@iks-jena.de></a>
wrote:
<blockquote
cite="mid:77AB37B7-CF2F-483C-98F1-39D3E4CED4B8@emilytaylor.eu"
type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">On Fri, Dec 02, 2011 at 03:05:13PM +1100, Nettlefold, Peter wrote:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">"To make WHOIS data more accessible for consumers, the review team
recommends that ICANN should set up a dedicated, multilingual interface
website to help users access thick gTLD WHOIS data.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">
Remove 'thick gTLD'. The scope is narrowed later.
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">This would be a smart web portal, that would assist users to access
publicly available WHOIS data. It is not envisaged that this would
replicate registry databases in any way, but instead help users by
providing a single centralised site through which to search those
databases, and to display the WHOIS data in an accessible way.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">
Ack. (There is no reference zu gTLD.)
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">The review team has discussed the scope of this portal, and seeks
ecommunity views on whether it should only apply to thin gTLD registries,
or should instead provide a comprehensive gTLD search service."
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">
In order to be really useful, the system should be able to access any ICANN
regulated WHOIS data (which includes ASN and IP).
_______________________________________________
Rt4-whois mailing list
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:Rt4-whois@icann.org">Rt4-whois@icann.org</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/rt4-whois">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/rt4-whois</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">
_______________________________________________
Rt4-whois mailing list
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:Rt4-whois@icann.org">Rt4-whois@icann.org</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/rt4-whois">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/rt4-whois</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
<br>
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">--
</pre>
</body>
</html>