<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<font style="font-size: 11pt; font-family:
"Calibri","sans-serif"; color: rgb(31, 73,
125);">If that is the direction we go, OK. Just a note that there
is really no such thing as "thick gTLD WHOIS data," but rather
thick and thin registries. A clearer way to say the same thing
might be:<br>
<br>
==> </font><font
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">To
make WHOIS data more accessible for consumers, the review team
recommends that ICANN should set up a dedicated, multilingual
interface website for .COM and .NET to help users access the
complete gTLD WHOIS data.</font><font
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"><br>
<br>
===> Peter's original: <br>
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. </font><br>
<br>
Kathy<br>
<br>
:
<blockquote
cite="mid:CAKWYFsd-prMtgz6_q5XNPK1kEUhRKaXUazmhVR1AAnuDgeg=Og@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">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 moz-do-not-send="true"
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 moz-do-not-send="true"
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 moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:kathy@kathykleiman.com">kathy@kathykleiman.com</a>><br>
> Date: Fri, December 02, 2011 11:39 am<br>
> To: <a moz-do-not-send="true"
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 moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:Rt4-whois@icann.org">Rt4-whois@icann.org</a><br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
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
moz-do-not-send="true"
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 moz-do-not-send="true"
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 moz-do-not-send="true"
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>
<br>
<fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
<br>
<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>