[IRT.RegDataPolicy] Additional Thoughts Re yesterday's Rec. 7 discussion

[Rubens Kuhl]

> 
>  
> As a result, the new policy continues the “thick WHOIS” requirements and our implementation needs to be consistent with Thick WHOIS, especially in light of the Board’s resolution  and its anguage in the scorecard.
>  

While I still have to do a more through analysis of the report and the board scorecard to see whether we need to add something to the Council-board dialog, we need to be mindful that we are in implementation area here. From an implementation standpoint, only CL&D (consistent labelling and display) part of the Thick WHOIS policy is already implemented. The thin-to-thick transition of .com, .net and .jobs is still pending, so no new policy implementation - including RegDataPolicy - can assume all registrations are thick. There are both thin and thick registration and they will continue to coexist for some time, and I don't read neither the policy or the scorecard as marching orders for the thin-to-thick transition. On the contrary, both seem very carefully constructed to not give such an impression. 



Rubens



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/irt.regdatapolicy/attachments/20190808/416f0dd5/attachment.html>