<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 12 (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:0in;
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;}
@page WordSection1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
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=EN-US link=blue vlink=purple><div class=WordSection1><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>Thanks Emily<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><div style='border:none;border-top:solid #B5C4DF 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in'><p class=MsoNormal><b><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"'>From:</span></b><span 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 8:57 AM<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></div><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 put in the agreed recommendation, and I suggest that we put in the explanatory text above.<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> <img border=0 id="_x0000_i1025" src="http://www.etlaw.co.uk/images/stories/etlaw/etclogo250x60.gif"><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>