[Rt4-whois] Fwd: [NCSG-Discuss] Comment Period RE: Preliminary Issue Report on 'Thick' Whois

Tue Nov 22 16:20:19 UTC 2011

And as if to read our minds, the GNSO is working on the Thick Whois/Thin 
Whois problems. A very good step for them to take.

FYI,
Kathy

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: 	[NCSG-Discuss] Comment Period RE: Preliminary Issue Report on 
'Thick' Whois
Date: 	Mon, 21 Nov 2011 18:47:16 -0800
From: 	Robin Gross <robin at IPJUSTICE.ORG>
Reply-To: 	Robin Gross <robin at IPJUSTICE.ORG>
To: 	NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU

Begin forwarded message:

> *From: *Glen de Saint Géry <Glen at icann.org <mailto:Glen at icann.org>>
> *Date: *November 21, 2011 3:07:29 PM PST
> *To: *liaison6c <liaison6c at gnso.icann.org 
> <mailto:liaison6c at gnso.icann.org>>
> *Subject: **[liaison6c] Preliminary Issue Report on 'Thick' Whois*
>
> Preliminary Issue Report on 'Thick' Whois Comment Period Deadlines^
>
> Important Information LinksPublic Comment Box 
> <http://www.icann.org/en/public-comment/thick-whois-preliminary-report-21nov11-en.htm>
> *Open Date:*21 November 2011To Submit Your Comments (Forum) 
> <mailto:thick-whois-preliminary-report at icann.org>
> *Close Date:*30 December 2011*Time (UTC):*23:59
> View Comments Submitted 
> <http://forum.icann.org/lists/thick-whois-preliminary-report/>
> *Section I: Description, Explanation, and Purpose*
>
> ICANN Staff is seeking comments on itsPreliminary Issue Report on 
> 'Thick' Whois 
> <http://gnso.icann.org/issues/whois/preliminary-report-thick-whois-21nov11-en.pdf>[PDF, 
> 635 KB]. Specifically, this Report addresses not only a possible 
> requirement of 'thick' WHOIS for all incumbent gTLDs in the context of 
> the Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy (IRTP), but also considers any 
> other positive and/or negative effects that are likely to occur 
> outside of IRTP that would need to be taken into account when deciding 
> whether a requirement of 'thick' WHOIS for all incumbent gTLDs would 
> be desirable or not.
>
> The Preliminary Issue Report informs the GNSO Council concerning the 
> possible requirement of 'thick' Whois for all incumbent gTLDs in 
> advance of the Council's vote on whether to commence a Policy 
> Development Process (PDP) on this issue.
>
> This Public Comment solicitation represents an opportunity for the 
> ICANN community to provide its views on this topic and on whether a 
> Policy Development Process should be initiated to consider the 
> requirement of 'thick' Whois for all incumbent gTLDs. This Preliminary 
> Issue Report will be updated to reflect community feedback submitted 
> through this forum. A Final Issue Report will then be presented to the 
> GNSO Council for its consideration.*Section II: Background*
>
> In the context of the Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy (IRTP) Part A as 
> well as the Part B Working Group, the issue of 'thick' Whois was 
> discussed and it was noted that: “The benefit would be that in a thick 
> registry one could develop a secure method for a gaining registrar to 
> gain access to the registrant contact information. Currently there is 
> no standard means for the secure exchange of registrant details in a 
> thin registry. In this scenario, disputes between the registrant and 
> admin contact could be reduced, as the registrant would become the 
> ultimate approver of a transfer”. At the same time it was noted that 
> even though requiring 'thick' Whois for all incumbent gTLDs would have 
> benefits in the context of transfers, it would be important to explore 
> 'any other potential positive or negative effects that are likely to 
> occur outside of IRTP that would need to be taken into account'. As a 
> result, the IRTP Part B Working Group recommended requesting: “an 
> Issue Report on the requirement of 'thick' WHOIS for all incumbent 
> gTLDs. Such an Issue Report and possible subsequent Policy Development 
> Process should not only consider a possible requirement of 'thick' 
> WHOIS or all incumbent gTLDs in the context of IRTP, but should also 
> consider any other positive and/or negative effects that are likely to 
> occur outside of IRTP that would need to be taken into account when 
> deciding whether a requirement of 'thick' WHOIS for all incumbent 
> gTLDs would be desirable or not”. This recommendation that was adopted 
> by the GNSO Council at its meeting on 22 September 2011 
> (seehttp://gnso.icann.org/resolutions/).
>
> *Section III: Document and Resource Links*
>
> Preliminary Issue Report on 'Thick' Whois 
> <http://gnso.icann.org/issues/whois/preliminary-report-thick-whois-21nov11-en.pdf>[PDF, 
> 635 KB]
>
> *Section IV: Additional Information*None*Staff Contact:*Marika 
> Konings*Email:*policy-staff at icann.org 
> <mailto:policy-staff at icann.org?subject=More%20information%20on%20the%20Preliminary%20Issue%20Report%20on%20Thick%20Whois%20public%20comment%20period>
> Glen de Saint Géry
> GNSO Secretariat
> gnso.secretariat at gnso.icann.org <mailto:gnso.secretariat at gnso.icann.org>
> http://gnso.icann.org

IP JUSTICE
Robin Gross, Executive Director
1192 Haight Street, San Francisco, CA  94117  USA
p: +1-415-553-6261    f: +1-415-462-6451
w: http://www.ipjustice.org     e: robin at ipjustice.org 
<mailto:robin at ipjustice.org>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/rt4-whois/attachments/20111122/e4088f75/attachment.html 