[Rt4-whois] No agreement on Lutz's recommendations - other work in progress

[Kathy Kleiman]

Hi All,
I'll share my views, but also with a tired sigh having spent so much of 
the last few days editing (the part of the report task I thought we were 
on). So there is much more to share, but I will give you the highlights, 
at least in my mind.

_Findings_
1. We promised to derive all of our recommendations based on findings. 
In this case, the findings are:
A. We have a findability problem with some thin registries - our 
qualitative survey showed that people are having trouble finding the 
registrars for .COM domain names; we have some confirmation of this 
problem in the comments as well.
B. We have no findability problem with thick registries. In fact, the 
opposite is true. We have pointed to thick registries as the models of 
what we want to see in Whois databases, and applauded the New gTLD 
Guidebook for making the thick registry the model for all new gTLDs.
C. We may not even have a findability problem with two thin registries 
that we have never discussed, .JOBS and .NAME.

_Concerns
_D. This recommendation arose after MDR and Dakar. We have never - in 
person- talked about, worked through, or debated in person the wording 
of this recommendation. It did not arise until recently, even as we were 
finishing the chapters. Except in the last few days, even as some of us 
were working hard on the report format, footnotes and cross-references.

E.It does not seem correlated at all to our findings. We found a problem 
with .COM findability -- and documented it.

F.  Most importantly, We have not checked for other work going on.  
Parallel work in other areas, e.g., consumer trust, is something we 
spoke a lot about. Here too, there is parallel work, but we have done no 
research into in. In fact, there is an issues report and public comment 
in play on this very issue.

In fact, there are other proceedings going on and a fascinating recent 
report from the IRTP just out that is looking at a thick database for 
.COM and .NET for registration transfer purposes (and we can, of course, 
see many other benefits to that.  In a proceeding now open, they are 
asking the very questions we should have as well:

/Background/
*Here's what I wrote in our Report's Policy Chapter:*
     ==> "Although the .COM and .NET WHOIS models have remained 
unchanged for 11 years, there are some recommendations underway within 
the GNSO asking the community to consider the value of moving thin 
registries to a "thick WHOIS" model. Published on November 22, 2011, the 
comments ask the Community what "positive and/or negative effects" may 
arise from such a change.[footnote] As this evaluation is now taking 
place, it is not an existing policy which the Review Team could 
evaluate. However, we note the proceeding could lead to significant 
changes in the area."

*Here's the IRTP's Recommendation #3: *
==> "The WG recommends requesting an Issues Report on the requirement of 
'thick' WHOIS for all incumbent gTLDs. 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. Such an Issue Report and possible 
subsequent Policy Development Process should not only consider a 
possible requirement of 'thick' WHOIS for 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."

*Called the *Preliminary Issue Report on'Thick' Whois, and recently 
issues, *ICANN staff explored some of these issues and has put a public 
notice out to the community to participate in the assessment of positive 
and negative effects of changes to the thin registries. Up for public 
comment now on the ICANN website *(btw, all, a key flag raised on this 
before the IRTP was privacy, and input on this issue is expected in the 
public comments).*

*G. Can we even mandate a multilingual interface when, to the best of 
our knowledge, it does not even exist?*__(Did I miss something in our 
great IDN analysis/chapter?)

H. Overall, we have ventured into an area we have not discussed in 
detail, even among ourselves, and frankly with the registries, 
registrars and Community who would be impacted. It's a policy change 
that we are suggesting - a detailed technical move - and it last minute. 
I am very concerned. *
*_

Conclusions

_I thoroughly recommend at this point that we don't take make any 
recommendation in this area. There is simply to much we don't know, and 
too much underway that we have not even tried to look at.

Should we decide it is critical to move forward, we should not recommend 
a technical solution, but allow ICANN to find it, consistent with other 
proceeding. As Peter says, let's open this up for input.

*//*_So here is the recommendation, if we have to make one at all:
_
** ==> To make the Whois data of .COM and .NET more accessible to those 
who seek it, the Review Team recommends that the ICANN Board direct an 
effort to facilitate easier access to the thick Whois data of .COM and 
.NET.  This effort should coordinate with existing discussions within 
the GNSO of a Thick Whois database for existing thin registries and aim 
for a multilingual interface when technologically feasible.


 From Emily:
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


-- 



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/rt4-whois/attachments/20111202/c591744b/attachment.html