[Rt4-whois] No agreement on Lutz's recommendations [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED]

[Omar Kaminski]

Probably we could say there's no privacy implications on Whois since
it was made to be acessible, if you put your data you agree with this
condition.

The problem is the misuse (after) - both for data and hidden data (proxy).

Omar



2011/12/2 Smith, Bill <bill.smith at paypal-inc.com>:
> I agree with Lynn and Peter on this. I'm having difficulty understanding the privacy implications of better usability, other than more people would use the service but then that's the purpose of improved usability.
>
> On Dec 2, 2011, at 4:39 AM, <lynn at goodsecurityconsulting.com> <lynn at goodsecurityconsulting.com> wrote:
>
>> I would like to get a better understanding of the.  Objection or concern about Lutz's recommendation.  If an interface is only implemented for .net and .com, it defeats the purpose and does not provide ease of access to all WHOIS registration data.
>> Lynn
>>
>> Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Emily Taylor <emily at emilytaylor.eu>
>> Sender: rt4-whois-bounces at icann.org
>> Date: Fri, 2 Dec 2011 08:28:15
>> To: Lutz Donnerhacke<lutz at iks-jena.de>
>> Cc: rt4-whois at icann.org<rt4-whois at icann.org>
>> Subject: Re: [Rt4-whois] No agreement on Lutz's recommendations
>>       [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED]
>>
>> Thank you for these constructive ideas.  Apologies for my mistake on this one. I would like Kathy's view on the proposed wording before any sign offing this as I am aware it is something on which she has previously raised comments.
>>
>> Peter I think you meant thin registries didn't you?  That would be a more accurate and precise version of what we agreed. This another one where (I think) we are all agreed on a minimum which in my view would represent a real step forward. What there is not consensus on is how far or whether such a look-up could or should be expanded. If is not already clear in the text we should find a way of expressing clearly that our proposal should not necessitate any transfer of databases, escrow or similar. It is simply a single look up point.
>>
>> Sent from my iPhone
>>
>> On 2 Dec 2011, at 07:35, Lutz Donnerhacke <lutz at iks-jena.de> wrote:
>>
>>> On Fri, Dec 02, 2011 at 03:05:13PM +1100, Nettlefold, Peter wrote:
>>>> "To make WHOIS data more accessible for consumers, the review team
>>>> recommends that ICANN should set up a dedicated, multilingual interface
>>>> website to help users access thick gTLD WHOIS data.
>>>
>>> Remove 'thick gTLD'. The scope is narrowed later.
>>>
>>>> This would be a smart web portal, that would assist users to access
>>>> publicly available WHOIS data. It is not envisaged that this would
>>>> replicate registry databases in any way, but instead help users by
>>>> providing a single centralised site through which to search those
>>>> databases, and to display the WHOIS data in an accessible way.
>>>
>>> Ack. (There is no reference zu gTLD.)
>>>
>>>> The review team has discussed the scope of this portal, and seeks
>>>> ecommunity views on whether it should only apply to thin gTLD registries,
>>>> or should instead provide a comprehensive gTLD search service."
>>>
>>> In order to be really useful, the system should be able to access any ICANN
>>> regulated WHOIS data (which includes ASN and IP).
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Rt4-whois mailing list
> Rt4-whois at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/rt4-whois