[registrars] Draft for TF2

[Elana Broitman]

Tom - why can't the email and address of the tech contact be displayed only in category 2?  wouldn't this serve the goal behind having this contact as technical users could be vetted as "known users."

Also, is it correct to assume that registrars could display additional fields if they chose to?  This is just a proposal for the required fields?

Elana Broitman
Register.com
575 Eighth Avenue
New York, NY 10018
Phone (212) 798-9215
> EFax  (800) 886-2716
Fax   (212) 629-9309
ebroitman at register.com 


-----Original Message-----
From: owner-registrars at gnso.icann.org
[mailto:owner-registrars at gnso.icann.org]On Behalf Of Thomas Keller
Sent: Wednesday, April 07, 2004 12:32 PM
To: Paul Stahura
Cc: 'Thomas Keller'; registrars at dnso.org
Subject: Re: [registrars] Draft for TF2


Hi Paul,

good points. Please see my answers below:

Am 07.04.2004 schrieb Paul Stahura:
> Tom,
> 
> Why have the tech contact in the anonymous accessed data?

This has a kind of historical background. Thought that WHOIS
was initally designed to be able to reach a technical person
in case something went wrong with a domain name I figured
that this "basic feature" should be preserved. Since the tech 
contact is, in most cases, the registrar, webhost or dns provider 
in other words a company and not a private person this should 
not be a problem.

> And why not have the creation, expiration and update dates?

Easy answer, I just forgot to put them in ,-(. Writing this draft
it appeared to me that we never really discussed what data should
be shown and what not so I focused on the data fields which possibly
can contain private data.

> Also, many registrars display other, non-required information in the whois
> output such as the name of the reseller.  Your statement does not mention
> this data.  Should we explicitly mention that we want to continue to have
> the ability to display such non-required information as we choose?
> 
> How about the following for the anonymous accessed data set:
> 
> 1.1 	Name of the Registrant
> 1.2 	Country of the Registrant
> 1.3 	Name of the Admin-C
> 1.4 	Country of the Admin-C
> 1.5  	Name of the Technical Contact
> 1.6   Country of the Technical Contact
> 1.7 	Nameserver names 
> 1.8 	Registrar of record
> 1.9   Creation Date
> 1.10 	The non-auto renewed expiration Date
> 1.11	The Last Updated date (the date the whois info last changed)
> 1.12	The domain itself

I agree with one exception: The tech-c data should not be restricted
> 
> Also, does this apply only to gTLDs or also ccTLDs and sTLDs  ?

Since this is a GNSO effort the old policy as well as the new policy
can only be valid for gTLDs and sTLDS (which are only a subset of the gTLDs)
Registrars and Registries with binding ICANN contracts. I nevertheless
hope that the new standard will be widely adopted in the ccTLD world
as well.

> Wondering,
> Paul

Hope that helped.

tom

> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-registrars at gnso.icann.org
> [mailto:owner-registrars at gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Thomas Keller
> Sent: Monday, April 05, 2004 2:53 AM
> To: registrars at dnso.org
> Subject: [registrars] Draft for TF2
> 
> 
> Hello,
> 
> please find attached my draft of the Registrar Constituency Statement
> for
> the WHOIS TF 2. 
> 
> I tried to incorporate all the registrar input I got over the course of 
> the last month as well as the findings of the TF2 data collection which 
> should be available for public review soon.
> 
> Please be advised that we have to formulate an offical statement on this
> topic
> until April 16.
> 
> Best,
> 
> tom
> 
> --
> 
> Thomas Keller
> 
> Domain Services
> Schlund + Partner AG
> Brauerstrasse 48         		           Tel
> +49-721-91374-534
> 76135 Karlsruhe, Germany               	Fax  +49-721-91374-215
> http://www.schlund.de                  	tom at schlund.de
> 
> 
> 

Gruss,

tom

(__)        
(OO)_____  
(oo)    /|\	A cow is not entirely full of
  | |--/ | *    milk some of it is hamburger!
  w w w  w