[Rt4-whois] FW: Adopting Specification 4 of the AGB

[Kathy Kleiman]

Dear Susan,
I understand your desire to see a Thick Whois Model imposed across the 
board. Watching the users on the video we watched in MDR struggle with 
the searches was painful.  Knowing that you struggle with this issue 
every day is even worse.

However, adopting the Applicant Guidebook provisions for New Registries 
I don't see as being the right answer. In part, because it raises as 
many questions as it answers, and it may pose instability to the Net.

To expand: As we have discussed, in the early days, the functions of 
Registry and Registrar were not separate and Network Solutions both 
managed the database for .COM, .ORG  and NET, and also registered domain 
names into it.

In 1999, I believe, ICANN introduced the first bit of competition, 4 
registrars to register domain names into the new gTLDs. As more 
competition in the registrar business came in (considered a hallmark of 
ICANN's work to introduce competition into the domain name space), the 
registrars began banging on Network Solutions, then owned by SAIC, then 
purchased by Verisign, to stop their compete ownership and control of 
the Whois information. It was an element of the competitive nature of 
the new domain name space to break up the information so one registry 
would not own and control it all.

The key concern was, of course, .COM. And these issues, and the real 
concern of this largest of the registry database, now numbering almost 
100 million names (Oct 2011), would control the customer data and be 
able to bypass the new registrars and compete directly for the 
registration business, as well as creating a series of additional 
business functions. It's an enormous set of competitive data (as we 
heard from the Registrars in the Registry/Registrar meeting in Singapore 
with us) Registrars remain very committed to this model, and for 
legitimate reasons.

Further, the danger of converting a 100 million database is enormous. 
When the Public Interest Registry took over the .ORG contract (after 
competitive applications), among the first things it had to do was 
convert the ORG registrations to thick ones. There were only a few 
million registrations at the time and it was still an enormous and 
delicate task. It was a huge moment.

Such a change, now to the enormous .COM database, is not an easy one to 
think about. Every major company in the world has a .COM registration. 
These websites are 24*7 operations. The risk to the Security & Stability 
of the Net would be one to study closely and carefully.  The 
difficulties, not to mention risks and liabilities, would be enormous.

Is there something we can do, within the confines of our mandate and our 
fact-based research and assessment.  Yes, I really think there are.

We have some key things we have agreed to:
*1) Findability *- thin registration data should be findable. That's a 
technical issue (broken links) and an educational issue (what's a thin 
Whois, or better yet, how to I find .COM data). On education, there is 
much we can do to educate and help Law Enforcement and Fraud 
Investigators (public and private) to find the data we need. Let's 
include some recommendations on these.
*2) Access & Accuracy *- as we have already been discussing and which 
are key.

One thing we could do (and it will make us few friends) is to throw this 
kettle of fish into the hands of the registries and registrars on a 
timeframe, e.g., six months or one year, for their solutions and 
recommendations.  They, together with the Community which must review 
and accept their solutions, must move quickly.

But I don't think we can mandate a specific answer.
Best,
Kathy





:
>
> Just realized that I did not attach the document to this email last week.
>
> *From:*Susan Kawaguchi
> *Sent:* Tuesday, November 08, 2011 11:13 PM
> *To:* rt4-whois at icann.org
> *Subject:* Adopting Specification 4 of the AGB
>
> Attached is a draft of  recommendations for adopting Specification 4 
> of the AGB for existing gTlds.
>
> At the end of the document are rough thoughts on ICANN creating a 
> voluntary program for registrars to be considered*A* list registrars.  
> This would recognize the responsible registars and the proactive 
> service they provide.
>
> I will not be on the call tonight since it is 3 am my time.  Not sure 
> anything I would say would make any sense.
>
> Susan Kawaguchi
>
> Domain Name Manager
>
> Facebook Inc.
>
> 1601 California Avenue
>
> Palo Alto, CA
>
> Phone - 650 485-6064
>
> Cell - 650 387 3904
>
> Please note my email address has changed to skawaguchi at fb.com
>
> NOTICE: This email (including any attachments) may contain information 
> that is private, confidential, or protected by attorney-client or 
> other privilege.  Unless you are the intended recipient, you may not 
> use, copy, or retransmit the email or its contents.
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Rt4-whois mailing list
> Rt4-whois at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/rt4-whois


-- 



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/rt4-whois/attachments/20111117/5d59b51d/attachment.html