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

[Kathy Kleiman]

If that is the direction we go, OK. Just a note that there is really no 
such thing as "thick gTLD WHOIS data," but rather thick and thin 
registries.  A clearer way to say the same thing might be:

==> To make WHOIS data more accessible for consumers, the review team 
recommends that ICANN should set up a dedicated, multilingual interface 
website for .COM and .NET to help users access the complete gTLD WHOIS data.

===> Peter's original:
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.

Kathy

:
> Oh dear, just when we thought it was safe to go out.
>
> We are out of time for this kind of debate. I am certainly not going 
> to hold up publication of the report on this issue.
>
> We agreed a recommendation limited to thin WHOIS, and I believe that 
> the way to go given these exchanges is the solution Peter suggested 
> last night: we can preface it by a line or two of text saying a number 
> of team members believe that there would be no reason not to expand a 
> neutral, combined look-up to other TLDs in time, but we have consensus 
> for thin WHOIS.
>
> I will put in the agreed recommendation, and I suggest that we put in 
> the explanatory text above.
>
> Kind regards
>
> Emily
>
> On 2 December 2011 18:28, Omar Kaminski <omar at kaminski.adv.br 
> <mailto:omar at kaminski.adv.br>> wrote:
>
>     Completely agree with Lynn about the "mistery" (from the common user
>     point of view) that envolves a Whois query (and let's forget the
>     predictive confusion between gTLDs and ccTLDs).
>
>     A good way to see the situation in perspective is to put "whois" on
>     Google and check the results: they attend the users needs?
>
>     BTW, in Brazil we have a project of law on House of Representatives
>     that imposes the need to show the site owner's data. Consumer trust, I
>     must say. In other hand, how to supervise thousands, millions of
>     sites?
>
>     Omar
>
>
>     2011/12/2 <lynn at goodsecurityconsulting.com
>     <mailto:lynn at goodsecurityconsulting.com>>:
>     > Perhaps it is because we have had an intense week trying to wrap
>     this up.
>     > But I thought Lutz had submitted this recommendation some time
>     ago.  And on
>     > the last conference call, he clarified that
>     > this was not a centralized database but rather a
>     centralized interface.  And
>     > his recommendation referenced the consumer research study which
>     > I also called out and acknowledged the linkage.  So it is also a
>     surprise to
>     > me that we are not all in ageement.
>     >
>     > From my perspective, this is not about Thick or Thin Whois
>     data.   It is
>     > about alleviatng the difficulties that absolutely everyone
>     encounters in
>     > doing
>     > Whois lookups.  For those of us involved in the domain name
>     industry, we are
>     > more familiar with navigating.  But I have to say it is
>     cumbersome and
>     > usually requires several steps to find the registrant information.
>     > Lynn
>     >
>     >
>     > -------- Original Message --------
>     > Subject: Re: [Rt4-whois] No agreement on Lutz's recommendations
>     > [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED]
>     > From: Kathy Kleiman <kathy at kathykleiman.com
>     <mailto:kathy at kathykleiman.com>>
>     > Date: Fri, December 02, 2011 11:39 am
>     > To: rt4-whois at icann.org <mailto:rt4-whois at icann.org>
>     >
>     > Completely disagree guys, and am writing an extensive message. I
>     have to say
>     > that two days after we were due to report out, I am
>     > surprised/concerned/upset to be debating substantive policy matters.
>     >
>     > But the fact is that the idea of  Thick WHOIS database for
>     existing thin
>     > registries (and all, there are Four of them, have we ever
>     discussed that
>     > fact?) is **already being debated**.  They recognize that there
>     may be
>     > intended and possibly considerable unintended consequences of
>     the process.
>     > Am reviewing their work and will share shortly.
>     >
>     > Suffice to say, I think we have leapt headlong into policy... Kathy
>     >
>     > << Yes - there is not a difference in privacy by implementing a
>     centralized
>     > interface to all the existing Whois pages.  All the interface
>     does is
>     > provide a single point of access to the same data versus
>     multiple points of
>     > access (that would still be functional).
>     >
>     > Lynn
>     >
>     >
>
>     _______________________________________________
>     Rt4-whois mailing list
>     Rt4-whois at icann.org <mailto:Rt4-whois at icann.org>
>     https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/rt4-whois
>
>
>
>
> -- 
>
>
>
>
> __
>
> 76 Temple Road, Oxford OX4 2EZ UK
> t: +44 (0)1865 582 811 . m: +44 (0)7540 049 322
> emily at emilytaylor.eu <mailto:emily at emilytaylor.eu>
>
> *www.etlaw.co.uk <http://www.etlaw.co.uk>*
>
> Emily Taylor Consultancy Limited is a company registered in England 
> and Wales No. 730471. VAT No. 114487713.
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/e28cbd5c/attachment.html