[registrars] .net thick/thin discussion

[Jens Wagner]

Tim Ruiz schrieb:

>The fact that info and biz are cheaper has nothing to do with Whois or the
>thick/thin model.
>
I just wanted to clarify that it doesn't increase our costs.

>And the issues with privacy don't go away with thick. They only get more
>complicated because both the registry and the registrar maintain Whois data.
>While we can outsource, the RAA does not relieve the registrar from
>fulfilling its Whois requirements based on whether a registry is thick or
>thin, or what the privacy rules are in the home country of the registry.
>
I would see that as a reason to prefer thick registries; A local court 
can force you (e.g. by preliminary injunction) to shut down your whois 
service, but of course it cannot force you to shut down the registry's 
whois service.
So a thick registry increases the legal stability for both registrars 
and registrants, and ensures that whois related issues are handled on an 
equal basis for all registrars!

  -  jens


>
>I agree with Paul on this.
>
>Tim
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: owner-registrars at gnso.icann.org
>[mailto:owner-registrars at gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Jens Wagner
>Sent: Tuesday, July 27, 2004 4:39 AM
>To: Paul Stahura
>Cc: 'Marcus Faure'; Larry Erlich; Eric Brunner-Williams in Portland Maine;
>Bruce Tonkin; registrars at dnso.org; Alexander Siffrin
>Subject: Re: [registrars] .net thick/thin discussion
>
>Paul Stahura schrieb:
>
>  
>
>>I'd like to keep the whois information closer to the registrant, at the
>>registrar.  The further away from the registrant the more out of their
>>control their own information becomes.
>>There is no disincentive to stop the registries from leaking the
>>    
>>
>information
>  
>
>>to anyone.  The thick requirement increases their costs (and system
>>complexity) which they pass on to us.
>>
>>    
>>
>Which TLDs are cheaper? .info/.biz (thick) or .com/.net (thin)?
>
>  
>
>>Also, if they have this
>>responsibility they will put pressure on use to make expensive proactive
>>validity checks so that "their" outputted information is pristine.
>>
>>    
>>
>They don't make more or less pressure than ICANN.
>
>  
>
>>A thick
>>registry makes services such as whois privacy protection more difficult (as
>>some of those types of services change, for example, the email address
>>periodically and therefore would have to communicate all those changes to
>>the registry).  Database synchronization is a problem with the thick model.
>>
>>    
>>
>DB synchronization by EPP is no problem at all, as long as contact 
>information contains all fields needed (which is required by ICANN 
>anyway). Providing an own whois service also requires some efforts and 
>cost involved for each registrar.
>
>  
>
>>If the registries want to provide a universal whois service or need it for
>>some other purpose they can ask for the information and be white listed.
>>    
>>
>We
>  
>
>>have too many protocols for moving the whois around, why move it with EPP
>>too?  Let's standardize on one: IRIS.
>>
>>    
>>
>We have EPP around already. Not IRIS.
>
>  
>
>>Let's require the registrars to output it in a standard format but allow
>>optional output as well; the reseller information is only one type of
>>optional information that some of us choose to output.
>>
>>    
>>
>This could be a good EPP extension as well.
>
>  
>
>>I agree with Larry Erlich and also with Bruce's proposal, I'm OK with the
>>per-registrar model (the registrar chooses).  If the complexity increase is
>>problematic, then just make it thin.
>>
>>    
>>
>
>No. Thin makes lots of trouble with the new transfer policy. What 
>happens e.g. if an accredited registrar is required by a local court to 
>shut down his whois (e.g. by a preliminary injunction)? Other registrars 
>would not be able to transfer domains away from them?
>
>Thin registries increase the cost for authorities as well. If it comes 
>to whois data protection policies, an authority would need to get in 
>contact with all registrars involved.
>
>DENIC, the .de registry, makes a simple user authentication by IP 
>addresses. These addresses can easily be managed, as they only need to 
>be stored in a single entity. This has been working quite well up until now!
>
>Key-Systems would definitely be in favour of a Thick-Registry solution.
>
>Best regards,
>
>Jens Wagner
>CTO Key-Systems GmbH
>
>Key-Systems GmbH
>Prager Ring 4-12
>66482 Zweibrücken
>Tel.: +49 (0) 6332 - 79 18 50
>Fax.: +49 (0) 6332 - 79 18 51
>Email: support at rrpproxy.net
>
>www.key-systems.net
>www.domaindiscount24.com
>www.RRPproxy.net
>www.Key-Fashion.de
>
>
>  
>
>>Paul
>>Has anyone considered another alternative: depositing the whois at a common
>>third party across all ICANN-contracted TLDs? Not the registries and not
>>    
>>
>the
>  
>
>>registrars?
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: owner-registrars at gnso.icann.org
>>[mailto:owner-registrars at gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Marcus Faure
>>Sent: Monday, July 26, 2004 12:06 AM
>>To: Larry Erlich
>>Cc: Eric Brunner-Williams in Portland Maine; Bruce Tonkin;
>>registrars at dnso.org
>>Subject: Re: [registrars] .net thick/thin discussion
>>
>>
>>Hello,
>>
>>even with a thin model, the first point of contact is the registry, e.g.
>>    
>>
>you
>  
>
>>have to go to the Internic whois first before you know which other whois
>>to query. Therefore the registry must be monitored closely, but IMHO doing
>>your
>>own whois does not help here. Sitefinder is a keyword for this discussion.
>>
>>As long as we do not have standardized whois output, a thin model is more 
>>difficult to deal with. I also think that the per-registrar thin model that
>>Bruce proposed will cause this extra work, and honestly I do not believe
>>that
>>the average user understands it.
>>
>>A registration service provider can be handled with an optional maintainer 
>>field in the whois. We have one on the CORE whois that defaults to the
>>member
>>number, but can also contain a URL.
>>
>>Yours,
>>Marcus
>> 
>>
>>    
>>
>
>
>
>  
>


-- 
Best regards,

Jens Wagner
CTO Key-Systems GmbH

Key-Systems GmbH
Prager Ring 4-12
66482 Zweibrücken
Tel.: +49 (0) 6332 - 79 18 50
Fax.: +49 (0) 6332 - 79 18 51
Email: support at rrpproxy.net

www.key-systems.net
www.domaindiscount24.com
www.RRPproxy.net
www.Key-Fashion.de