[Rt4-whois] Centralized Whois Query system run by ICANN - Scope and concerns [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED]

Wed Nov 30 21:50:30 UTC 2011

If we cannot get a consensus for applying the smart portal ideas for all registries, then how about stating that it should be implemented for at least the .com and .net registry with the view of extending it to other existing and future registries as appropriate.

Seth

From: Susan Kawaguchi [mailto:susank at fb.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, November 30, 2011 11:40 AM
To: Nettlefold, Peter; 'emily at emilytaylor.eu'
Cc: 'seth.reiss at lex-ip.com'; 'jbladel at godaddy.com'; 'rt4-whois at icann.org'
Subject: RE: [Rt4-whois] Centralized Whois Query system run by ICANN - Scope and concerns [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED]

agreed

From: Nettlefold, Peter [mailto:Peter.Nettlefold at dbcde.gov.au] 
Sent: Wednesday, November 30, 2011 1:39 PM
To: 'emily at emilytaylor.eu'; Susan Kawaguchi
Cc: 'seth.reiss at lex-ip.com'; 'jbladel at godaddy.com'; 'rt4-whois at icann.org'
Subject: Re: [Rt4-whois] Centralized Whois Query system run by ICANN - Scope and concerns [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED]

Classification: UNCLASSIFIED

Hi again,

As this is our draft, can we propose a compehensive solution (there are good reasons in favour), and then see what the other registries say? Maybe they won't oppose it. And if they do, at least we'll know why.

What would we lose by trying?

Cheers

Peter

From: Emily Taylor [mailto:emily at emilytaylor.eu] 
Sent: Thursday, December 01, 2011 08:32 AM
To: Susan Kawaguchi <susank at fb.com> 
Cc: Seth M Reiss <seth.reiss at lex-ip.com>; Nettlefold, Peter; jbladel at godaddy.com <jbladel at godaddy.com>; rt4-whois at icann.org <rt4-whois at icann.org> 
Subject: Re: [Rt4-whois] Centralized Whois Query system run by ICANN - Scope and concerns [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED] 

I agree with Susan.

Does the most recent wording reflect the "smart web portal" concept?  Sorry if I've missed it.  Have just got in.

On 30 November 2011 21:30, Susan Kawaguchi <susank at fb.com> wrote:

I will not oppose it if we  include all gTlds but my gut feeling is that the other registries may be opposed to being included in this web portal.    If we keep it as uncomplicated as possible we are more likely to gain the consensus of the community.  

From: Seth M Reiss [mailto:seth.reiss at lex-ip.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, November 30, 2011 1:25 PM
To: Susan Kawaguchi; 'Nettlefold, Peter'; jbladel at godaddy.com; emily at emilytaylor.eu
Cc: rt4-whois at icann.org
Subject: RE: [Rt4-whois] Centralized Whois Query system run by ICANN - Scope and concerns [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED]

I agree with Peter.  I do not know why we would want to limit it to .com and .net even though these GTLDs present the greatest challenge to the WHOIS consumer.  I think the smart portal idea that Lutz proposed avoid the concerns Kathy expressed regarding management; I am not sure I understand Susan’s concerns that it be limited to only to the two GTLDs most in need of the service.

Seth

From: rt4-whois-bounces at icann.org [mailto:rt4-whois-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Susan Kawaguchi

Sent: Wednesday, November 30, 2011 11:15 AM

To: Nettlefold, Peter; 'jbladel at godaddy.com'; 'emily at emilytaylor.eu'

Cc: 'rt4-whois at icann.org'
Subject: Re: [Rt4-whois] Centralized Whois Query system run by ICANN - Scope and concerns [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED]

That was my understanding when we discussed previously but this would only be for .com and .net registrations.    Is this feasible ?  

From: Nettlefold, Peter [mailto:Peter.Nettlefold at dbcde.gov.au] 
Sent: Wednesday, November 30, 2011 1:12 PM
To: Susan Kawaguchi; 'jbladel at godaddy.com'; 'emily at emilytaylor.eu'
Cc: 'rt4-whois at icann.org'
Subject: Re: [Rt4-whois] Centralized Whois Query system run by ICANN - Scope and concerns [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED]

Classification: UNCLASSIFIED

Hello all,

I've missed a lot of discussion on this overnight my time, so I apologise if I've missed something that answers my question.

The references to an ICANN database are confusing to me, and may be part of the contention here.

I had understood that we would recommend that ICANN create a smart web portal for consumers that would effectively do a WHOIS search for them. As I understood it, ICANN would not need to make its own database, thereby avoiding some of the data protection issues, and instead purely focus on the user experience.

Is this what others had understood?

If so, does this address the concerns about scope - ie why wouldn't ICANN provide a comprehensive search tool for all gTLDs?

Please let me know if I've got this wrong.

Cheers

Peter

From: Susan Kawaguchi [mailto:susank at fb.com] 
Sent: Thursday, December 01, 2011 03:27 AM
To: James M. Bladel <jbladel at godaddy.com>; Emily Taylor <emily at emilytaylor.eu> 
Cc: rt4-whois at icann.org <rt4-whois at icann.org> 
Subject: Re: [Rt4-whois] Centralized Whois Query system run by ICANN - Scope and concerns 

I agree that we should not try and answer all the questions but I was under the impression that the centralized WHOIS was only targeting .com and .net to solve the problem of having to search for the correct registrar out of the almost 1000 possible.  

I do not agree to include all gtlds.  

From: rt4-whois-bounces at icann.org [mailto:rt4-whois-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of James M. Bladel
Sent: Wednesday, November 30, 2011 8:21 AM
To: Emily Taylor
Cc: rt4-whois at icann.org
Subject: Re: [Rt4-whois] Centralized Whois Query system run by ICANN - Scope and concerns

No, I don't think we should attempt to answer these questions in RT4, nor presume that we have even identified all of the dependent questions.

I believe our recommendation should task the Board, within a reasonable timeframe (90 days?), to request an issues report on a Centralized WHOIS system for all gTLDs, including how it should be operated and what measures would be adopted to protect against abuse / privacy violations / data harvesting. 

(This will initiate a PDP which, while slower, will be a more comprehensive approach)

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: [Rt4-whois] Centralized Whois Query system run by ICANN -
Scope and concerns
From: Emily Taylor <emily at emilytaylor.eu>
Date: Wed, November 30, 2011 10:15 am
To: "James M. Bladel" <jbladel at godaddy.com>
Cc: Kathy Kleiman <kathy at kathykleiman.com>, rt4-whois at icann.org

Hi James

Thanks for raising these points.  Can you suggest some language which you think would work?  Also, Kathy raised a good point about whether this is limited to thin registries (.com, .net) or all?  I don't think we've ever discussed this. 

Kind regards

Emily

On 30 November 2011 16:06, James M. Bladel <jbladel at godaddy.com> wrote:

I don't oppose this recommendation, but my issue with this is that we are once again being too vague in what we're asking.

ICANN:    Who?  Staff?  The Board? The GNSO?  Contracted 3rd party?

Set up:  How?  By launching a PDP?  Sending out an RFP?

Deadline?  

Are we confident that this group has considered all of the consequences to privacy, security, access, SLAs, etc.?  (Reasons why a PDP can be more helpful for things like this...)

Thanks--

J.

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: [Rt4-whois] Centralized Whois Query system run by ICANN -
Scope and concerns
From: Kathy Kleiman <kathy at kathykleiman.com>
Date: Wed, November 30, 2011 9:56 am
To: rt4-whois at icann.org

All,
Is this the current version of the Lutz proposal now in circulation? I 
thought it applied only to a centralized database of the current "thin 
registries," namely .COM and .NET. If so, I can see the advantages and 
support sending it out as a recommendation in the draft report.

But if this is a single database of all registries, thick and thin, now 
and in the future, I think we creating a database problem. It's an 
enormous amount of data and creates a focal point for abuse, for 
warehousing, etc. It's the type of policing job that ICANN has never had 
to do, and is not operationally set up to do.

So thought summary: If ICANN is helping remedy a bad situation by 
operating a single registry for .COM and .NET to fix a historical 
problem, I think I am OK for now (pending review of the draft with 
registries -- after publication is fine). One database of all Whois 
information to Rule the World, not so good.

RECOMMENDATION EDIT:

Detailed recommendation:
ICANN should set up a dedicated, multilingual website to allow
"unrestricted and public access to accurate and complete WHOIS
information" **FOR .COM AND .NET, THE EXISTING "THIN REGISTRIES"** even for those people which have problems with the plain
WHOIS protocol.

The WHOIS information should be collected by following the thin WHOIS
approach starting at whois.iana.org. The service should display the
contractural relationships which are revealed by the WHOIS referals in
a clear and understandable way. The results should be mark clearly the
relevant information "including registrant, technical, ** DELETE BILLING** billing, and
administrative contact" data.

** NOTE: Billing data, which includes credit cards Folks, is simply not 
displayed in any other Whois search results. It is only registrant, 
technical, and admin contact.**

Best,
Kathy

> Proposal:
>
> Summary:
> ICANN should set up and maintain a web interface to access
> all the WHOIS services in order to ease access to the WHOIS data.
>
> Presumption:
> The AoC requires that "ICANN implement measures to maintain timely,
> unrestricted and public access to accurate and complete WHOIS information,
> including registrant, technical, billing, and administrative contact
> information."
>
> Observation:
> An User Insight Report came up with the following results:
> + Almost nobody is aware of whois
> + Almost nobody is able to query a whois server correctly
> + Whois queries were done on websites which occur first in the search
> engine results. Usually those pages are overloaded with advertisments.
>
> Detailed recommendation:
> ICANN should set up a dedicated, multilingual website to allow
> "unrestricted and public access to accurate and complete WHOIS
> information" even for those people which have problems with the plain
> WHOIS protocol.
>
> The WHOIS information should be collected by following the thin WHOIS
> approach starting at whois.iana.org. The service should display the
> contractural relationships which are revealed by the WHOIS referals in
> a clear and understandable way. The results should be mark clearly the
> relevant information "including registrant, technical, billing, and
> administrative contact" data.
>
> The server needs to be run by ICANN itself, because the "timely,
> unrestricted and public access" is usually rate limited, stripped or even
> blocked by the various WHOIS server administrators for uncontractual
> third party access. ICANN itself is the only party having the power to
> overcome those limits using its contratual compliance.
> _______________________________________________
> Rt4-whois mailing list
> Rt4-whois at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/rt4-whois

-- 

_______________________________________________
Rt4-whois mailing list
Rt4-whois at icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/rt4-whois

_______________________________________________
Rt4-whois mailing list
Rt4-whois at icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/rt4-whois

-- 

     <http://www.etlaw.co.uk/images/stories/etlaw/etclogo250x60.gif> 

76 Temple Road, Oxford OX4 2EZ UK
t: +44 (0)1865 582 811 <tel:%2B44%20%280%291865%20582%20811>  • m: +44 (0)7540 049 322 <tel:%2B44%20%280%297540%20049%20322> 
emily at emilytaylor.eu 

www.etlaw.co.uk

Emily Taylor Consultancy Limited is a company registered in England and Wales No. 730471. VAT No. 114487713.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NOTICE: This email message is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) 
and may contain confidential and privileged information. Any unauthorized 
review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the 
intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply email and destroy all 
copies of the original message. 

This message has been content scanned by the Axway MailGate. 
MailGate uses policy enforcement to scan for known viruses, spam, undesirable content and malicious code. For more information on Axway products please visit www.axway.com.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

-- 

     <http://www.etlaw.co.uk/images/stories/etlaw/etclogo250x60.gif> 

76 Temple Road, Oxford OX4 2EZ UK
t: +44 (0)1865 582 811 • m: +44 (0)7540 049 322
emily at emilytaylor.eu 

www.etlaw.co.uk

Emily Taylor Consultancy Limited is a company registered in England and Wales No. 730471. VAT No. 114487713.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NOTICE: This email message is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) 
and may contain confidential and privileged information. Any unauthorized 
review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the 
intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply email and destroy all 
copies of the original message. 

This message has been content scanned by the Axway MailGate. 
MailGate uses policy enforcement to scan for known viruses, spam, undesirable content and malicious code. For more information on Axway products please visit www.axway.com.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/rt4-whois/attachments/20111130/b4bcea4a/attachment.html 