[gtld-tech] Draft Updated WHOIS Clarification Advisory v.20141209

Don Blumenthal dblumenthal at pir.org
Sat Dec 20 17:52:24 UTC 2014

I think that we should focus here on the narrower set of issues that we have been addressing. There are no differences in the gTLD contract with respect to the nature of the registrant, and I don’t believe that the two successful RSEPs that have granted exemptions to Whois requirements involved that kind of question.

Whether there should be differences is another matter.


From: gtld-tech-bounces at icann.org [mailto:gtld-tech-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Patrik Fältström
Sent: Saturday, December 20, 2014 3:06 AM
To: Rubens Kuhl
Cc: gtld-tech at icann.org
Subject: Re: [gtld-tech] Draft Updated WHOIS Clarification Advisory v.20141209

Let me say it is even more complicated as it will be attribute by attribute as what attributes can be displayed have to do with various legislative rules, for example inability to show certain attributes if the registrant is a natural person (as compared with an organisation), who requests the data etc.


On 20 dec 2014, at 02:32, Rubens Kuhl <rubensk at nic.br<mailto:rubensk at nic.br>> wrote:


My point on WHOIS database is the possibility of an on-demand cache-driven database. Let's the WHOIS server is the front-end for a cache database that queries the SRS only for objects that are older than x minutes; in this way, the WHOIS database is made of specific entries like "example.TLD - datetime of cached query - query result", where result can be both the information or the non-existence of the domain. This database doesn't have or need transactional capabilities and can be either NoSQL or in-memory depending on registry profile.

Such an architecture has no concept of a global last updated timestamp, because it's built record by record based on query pattern.


On Dec 19, 2014, at 8:43 PM, Gould, James <JGould at verisign.com<mailto:JGould at verisign.com>> wrote:


Thanks for putting together the spreadsheet.  I reviewed the spreadsheet and added my comments prefixed with “JG - “ in the attachment.




James Gould
Distinguished Engineer
jgould at Verisign.com<x-msg://83/jgould@Verisign.com>

12061 Bluemont Way
Reston, VA 20190


On Dec 17, 2014, at 9:41 PM, Rubens Kuhl <rubensk at nic.br<mailto:rubensk at nic.br>> wrote:


Here follows an structured response to all of the December 12 proposed WHOIS clarifications. I divided them in four categories:
- Actual clarifications, marked in green.
- Optional enhancements (format changes that are optional in nature so they don't require effort from registries that do not want to make them, but allowing the ones who do to implement such improvements). Also marked in green.
- WHOIS format changes: changes to either output, format or semantics. These are changes that I think as permissible under the agreement, but not if ICANN call them clarifications; they should be called format changes in order to account for their real impact and provide ample time for registries to implement. It also should be noted that since they are not consensus policies, these changes might also be regulated by RRAs between registries and registrars, so beyond some reasonable time to implement (135 days is possible a starting point since it's the number for RDAP), it might also require to fit into the schedule of allowed changes to registry systems. 180 days is a condition that is usual in RRAs, so registries with such limitations should be able to get longer exemptions from ICANN. Marked in yellow.
- Registry change: changes that imply registry system data model or behaviour changes. Marked in red. For those changes there are no other venues than consensus policies and RA amendments, they simply do not fit in anything allowed by specification 4, and are likely to be quashed in the agreement and bylaws defined ways.

Some recommendations have more than one part so a few of them are marked in more than one column.

The registrar-only recommendations are listed in the workbook but not currently commented, but my guess is they will have a similar distribution of clarifications, simple changes and changes requiring a complete revamp of the system.


On Dec 9, 2014, at 10:41 PM, Gustavo Lozano <gustavo.lozano at icann.org<mailto:gustavo.lozano at icann.org>> wrote:

Hello colleagues,

Attached you will find the Draft Updated WHOIS Clarification Advisory. Two versions are provided for your reference: clean version and redline against the original advisory (v 1.0) as published on 12 September 2014 (https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/registry-agreement-spec4-raa-rdds-2014-09-12-en).

This draft version incorporates feedback gathered from various contracted parties, cases/emails sent to ICANN, the WHOIS Clarification Advisory meeting held at IETF 91 in November, and feedback sent to the gtld-tech mailing list.

A conference call, with the objective of gathering feedback on this draft version, will take place on Tuesday 16 December 2014. If you want to participate in the conference call, please send me an email to fabien.betremieux at icann.org<mailto:fabien.betremieux at icann.org>.

Please send any feedback or questions you have on this version of the advisory to the mailing list as soon as possible, in order for ICANN Staff to discuss internally and provide an answer during the conference call.

It's important to remember:
* This advisory is not meant to create new requirements for contracted parties.
* This advisory is not meant to redefine the WHOIS protocol.
* This advisory resulted from questions sent by contracted and third parties seeking clarification on the Whois (RDDS) requirements in the New gTLD base RA and 2013 RAA.

<Registry and Registrar RDDS Advisory - 1.0 vs 20141209[1][1].docx><Registry and Registrar RDDS Advisory - 20141209[3].docx>


<ResponseToWHOISClarifications - JG.xlsx>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gtld-tech/attachments/20141220/2dffc900/attachment-0001.html>

More information about the gtld-tech mailing list