From lgoodendorf at versprite.com Mon Feb 6 03:42:19 2012 From: lgoodendorf at versprite.com (Lynn Goodendorf) Date: Mon, 6 Feb 2012 03:42:19 +0000 Subject: [Rt4-whois] Slides for Tuesday's meeting In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <0556BB5BB3ED614D9261441DC56B1AB50E905E5D@GQ-EXCH002.greenqube.local> The slide content is excellent. Thanks Emily! Lynn ________________________________ From: rt4-whois-bounces at icann.org [rt4-whois-bounces at icann.org] on behalf of Emily Taylor [emily at emilytaylor.eu] Sent: Sunday, February 05, 2012 8:22 AM To: James M. Bladel Cc: rt4-whois at icann.org Subject: [Rt4-whois] Slides for Tuesday's meeting Hi James Further to our exchanges about Tuesday's meeting, here is a proposed slide deck. I've adapted it from the recent presentation to the GNSO. I've simplified the theme, to get rid of the reflected text, added the date, and audience, and then generally pruned the wording of the slides down a bit. I don't think I've changed the meaning, just made the slides a little more accessible. I will bring a USB with them on, and hope we can find someone who can drive them. All - let us know if you have any comments on the slides. These will form the basis of our presentation to the Community in Costa Rica, so let's keep incrementally editing them. See you Tuesday, James! Kind regards Emily -- [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. 7630471. VAT No. 114487713. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/rt4-whois/attachments/20120206/aefc8f21/attachment.html From lutz at iks-jena.de Mon Feb 6 08:48:15 2012 From: lutz at iks-jena.de (Lutz Donnerhacke) Date: Mon, 6 Feb 2012 09:48:15 +0100 Subject: [Rt4-whois] Questions on Recommendation 17 In-Reply-To: <4F2C2E79.7050208@kathykleiman.com> References: <4F2C2E79.7050208@kathykleiman.com> Message-ID: <20120206084815.GA21197@belenus.iks-jena.de> On Fri, Feb 03, 2012 at 01:59:05PM -0500, Kathy Kleiman wrote: > I understand it, we are recommending a "dedicated, multilingual website" to > provide thick Whois data (for thin gTLD registries, in one variation, and > all gTLD registries in the other): No, we are recommending a "dedicated, multilingual website" to provide a "centralized access to all whois data regardless of the underlying data structure". > 1. What is the underlying data structure of this website? Is all the > information going to be gathered into and run out of a California database > run and owned by ICANN? No. The website traveresed the data structure down the chain of whois servers (starting at whois.iana.org). It does not store nor copy the whois data, besides some short time caching. It's similar to DNS: A recursive resolver does not copy and stores all the DNS records worldwide, but is able to obtain the necessary data on the fly. > 2. Alternatively, might it be a website run by ICANN offering links to the > registries and registrars who hold the full Whois data? No. The results should be present directly on this particular website in order to fulfill the requirements of the AoC literaly: maintain timely, unrestricted and public access to accurate and complete WHOIS information, including registrant, technical, billing, and administrative contact information. In order to overcome the problems, shown by user experiance report, the website needs to be multilingual not only in terms of the user interface but also in the presentation of the gathered data. Of course, the website needs to show the sources and the way how the information was obtained, where it is really stored and why. That's the minimal requirement from (my) understanding of (European) data protection laws. > 3. Do you think this would become the place in which all people search for > all gTLD whois data? Yes, that's the intention of the proposal. > If so, could there be a scalability problem if all > people (law enforcement, domain name purchasers, etc) go to one website for > all Whois searches? Is there some liability to ICANN should such a site go > down? Yes, that's the reasoning behind the proposal: The AoC urges ICANN to provide such an unrestricted access. Unfortunly many registries does rate limit the access or does not provide all the required data. ICANN - as the operator of the proposed website - has the power to enforce it's own policies by using it's own contracts with the parties in question. This way the proposal collapses the differences between real world and AoC at a single point within the organisation which is able to solve the problem. > 4. Are we advocating a particular policy/technical solution or is the > implementation open to discussion in the GNSO and other policy groups > within ICANN? We - as a group - are limited to the such a proposal and might add some personal reasoning (like this). Personally I do run such an "all-whois" website since 1996 and do have some ideas how it should be implemented and which operational policy should be enforced. But that's outside of our scope. From kathy at kathykleiman.com Mon Feb 6 15:19:33 2012 From: kathy at kathykleiman.com (Kathy Kleiman) Date: Mon, 06 Feb 2012 10:19:33 -0500 Subject: [Rt4-whois] Questions on Recommendation 17 In-Reply-To: <20120206084815.GA21197@belenus.iks-jena.de> References: <4F2C2E79.7050208@kathykleiman.com> <20120206084815.GA21197@belenus.iks-jena.de> Message-ID: <4F2FEF85.5020307@kathykleiman.com> Hi Lutz, Thank you for the detailed answers below. I am still working through them and urge others to review them closely as well. I would very much like to see the "all-whois" website you have been running since 1996 -- would you be willing to share the link? There does seem to be a difference in how we view the AoC. I never saw as **requiring ** ICANN to have an operational role in running websites, and I don't remember such discussions in our meetings (did I sleep through something?) I do remember discussing that ICANN -- with Whois data as with so many other areas -- is responsible fo creating and overseeing policies that implement the wording and goals of the AoC. I tend to have a sense that policy-making bodies are not great operational bodies, and know there has been great push-back against ICANN in other areas (e.g. the DNS-Cert discussion of 2010). I will send back more detailed comments shortly. Thank you for this discussion online and, hopefully, in CR as well. And thanks for the link to your website! Best, Kathy : > On Fri, Feb 03, 2012 at 01:59:05PM -0500, Kathy Kleiman wrote: >> I understand it, we are recommending a "dedicated, multilingual website" to >> provide thick Whois data (for thin gTLD registries, in one variation, and >> all gTLD registries in the other): > > No, we are recommending a "dedicated, multilingual website" to provide a > "centralized access to all whois data regardless of the underlying data > structure". > >> 1. What is the underlying data structure of this website? Is all the >> information going to be gathered into and run out of a California database >> run and owned by ICANN? > No. The website traveresed the data structure down the chain of whois > servers (starting at whois.iana.org). It does not store nor copy the whois > data, besides some short time caching. > > It's similar to DNS: A recursive resolver does not copy and stores all the > DNS records worldwide, but is able to obtain the necessary data on the fly. > >> 2. Alternatively, might it be a website run by ICANN offering links to the >> registries and registrars who hold the full Whois data? > No. The results should be present directly on this particular website in > order to fulfill the requirements of the AoC literaly: > > maintain timely, unrestricted and public access to accurate and complete > WHOIS information, including registrant, technical, billing, and > administrative contact information. > > In order to overcome the problems, shown by user experiance report, the > website needs to be multilingual not only in terms of the user interface but > also in the presentation of the gathered data. > > Of course, the website needs to show the sources and the way how the > information was obtained, where it is really stored and why. That's the > minimal requirement from (my) understanding of (European) data protection > laws. > >> 3. Do you think this would become the place in which all people search for >> all gTLD whois data? > Yes, that's the intention of the proposal. > >> If so, could there be a scalability problem if all >> people (law enforcement, domain name purchasers, etc) go to one website for >> all Whois searches? Is there some liability to ICANN should such a site go >> down? > Yes, that's the reasoning behind the proposal: The AoC urges ICANN to > provide such an unrestricted access. Unfortunly many registries does rate > limit the access or does not provide all the required data. > > ICANN - as the operator of the proposed website - has the power to enforce > it's own policies by using it's own contracts with the parties in question. > > This way the proposal collapses the differences between real world and AoC > at a single point within the organisation which is able to solve the problem. > >> 4. Are we advocating a particular policy/technical solution or is the >> implementation open to discussion in the GNSO and other policy groups >> within ICANN? > We - as a group - are limited to the such a proposal and might add some > personal reasoning (like this). > > Personally I do run such an "all-whois" website since 1996 and do have some > ideas how it should be implemented and which operational policy should be > enforced. But that's outside of our scope. > -- From lutz at iks-jena.de Mon Feb 6 16:02:34 2012 From: lutz at iks-jena.de (Lutz Donnerhacke) Date: Mon, 6 Feb 2012 17:02:34 +0100 Subject: [Rt4-whois] Questions on Recommendation 17 In-Reply-To: <4F2FEF85.5020307@kathykleiman.com> References: <4F2C2E79.7050208@kathykleiman.com> <20120206084815.GA21197@belenus.iks-jena.de> <4F2FEF85.5020307@kathykleiman.com> Message-ID: <20120206160234.GA30844@belenus.iks-jena.de> On Mon, Feb 06, 2012 at 10:19:33AM -0500, Kathy Kleiman wrote: > Thank you for the detailed answers below. I am still working through them > and urge others to review them closely as well. I would very much like to > see the "all-whois" website you have been running since 1996 -- would you > be willing to share the link? The current state (focused on the German speaking community) is http://www.iks-jena.de/eng/Tools/Whois It's mostly useful for looking up IP addresses, especially IPv6 transition addresses like 2001:0:d911:c0d9:0:fbde:3d50:212c or 2002:d911:c0d9::1 The majority of users come from the German Law Enforcement (low level crime), simply because they are happy to call German speaking people in the case of trouble. > There does seem to be a difference in how we view the AoC. I never saw as > **requiring ** ICANN to have an operational role in running websites You are absolutly right. The AoC does not urge ICANN to operate a service at it's own. But - in order to fulfill the requirements from the AoC - the only party, which can run such a service, is ICANN itself. Therefore the proposal. > I will send back more detailed comments shortly. Thank you for this > discussion online and, hopefully, in CR as well. And thanks for the link to No, I'll not make it to CR. I was ill (recurrent corneal erosion) between the years and be urged to do not travel that far in the next few months. From seth.reiss at lex-ip.com Mon Feb 6 19:09:31 2012 From: seth.reiss at lex-ip.com (Seth M Reiss) Date: Mon, 6 Feb 2012 09:09:31 -1000 Subject: [Rt4-whois] Questions on Recommendation 17 In-Reply-To: <4F2FEF85.5020307@kathykleiman.com> References: <4F2C2E79.7050208@kathykleiman.com> <20120206084815.GA21197@belenus.iks-jena.de> <4F2FEF85.5020307@kathykleiman.com> Message-ID: <01ff01cce502$dbf1e460$93d5ad20$@reiss@lex-ip.com> Let's let the AoC speaks for itself. "ICANN additionally commits to enforcing its existing policy relating to WHOIS, subject to applicable laws. Such existing policy 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." Doesn't say that ICANN should play the operation role and it doesn't say that ICANN should not. ICANN is required to implement measures to effect an adequate result. I do recall discussing a portal, not sure if that was in terms of ICANN operating the portal or ICANN contracting a third party to, or maybe discussing both. Seth -----Original Message----- From: rt4-whois-bounces at icann.org [mailto:rt4-whois-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Kathy Kleiman Sent: Monday, February 06, 2012 5:20 AM To: Lutz Donnerhacke Cc: rt4-whois at icann.org Subject: Re: [Rt4-whois] Questions on Recommendation 17 Hi Lutz, Thank you for the detailed answers below. I am still working through them and urge others to review them closely as well. I would very much like to see the "all-whois" website you have been running since 1996 -- would you be willing to share the link? There does seem to be a difference in how we view the AoC. I never saw as **requiring ** ICANN to have an operational role in running websites, and I don't remember such discussions in our meetings (did I sleep through something?) I do remember discussing that ICANN -- with Whois data as with so many other areas -- is responsible fo creating and overseeing policies that implement the wording and goals of the AoC. I tend to have a sense that policy-making bodies are not great operational bodies, and know there has been great push-back against ICANN in other areas (e.g. the DNS-Cert discussion of 2010). I will send back more detailed comments shortly. Thank you for this discussion online and, hopefully, in CR as well. And thanks for the link to your website! Best, Kathy : > On Fri, Feb 03, 2012 at 01:59:05PM -0500, Kathy Kleiman wrote: >> I understand it, we are recommending a "dedicated, multilingual website" to >> provide thick Whois data (for thin gTLD registries, in one variation, and >> all gTLD registries in the other): > > No, we are recommending a "dedicated, multilingual website" to provide a > "centralized access to all whois data regardless of the underlying data > structure". > >> 1. What is the underlying data structure of this website? Is all the >> information going to be gathered into and run out of a California database >> run and owned by ICANN? > No. The website traveresed the data structure down the chain of whois > servers (starting at whois.iana.org). It does not store nor copy the whois > data, besides some short time caching. > > It's similar to DNS: A recursive resolver does not copy and stores all the > DNS records worldwide, but is able to obtain the necessary data on the fly. > >> 2. Alternatively, might it be a website run by ICANN offering links to the >> registries and registrars who hold the full Whois data? > No. The results should be present directly on this particular website in > order to fulfill the requirements of the AoC literaly: > > maintain timely, unrestricted and public access to accurate and complete > WHOIS information, including registrant, technical, billing, and > administrative contact information. > > In order to overcome the problems, shown by user experiance report, the > website needs to be multilingual not only in terms of the user interface but > also in the presentation of the gathered data. > > Of course, the website needs to show the sources and the way how the > information was obtained, where it is really stored and why. That's the > minimal requirement from (my) understanding of (European) data protection > laws. > >> 3. Do you think this would become the place in which all people search for >> all gTLD whois data? > Yes, that's the intention of the proposal. > >> If so, could there be a scalability problem if all >> people (law enforcement, domain name purchasers, etc) go to one website for >> all Whois searches? Is there some liability to ICANN should such a site go >> down? > Yes, that's the reasoning behind the proposal: The AoC urges ICANN to > provide such an unrestricted access. Unfortunly many registries does rate > limit the access or does not provide all the required data. > > ICANN - as the operator of the proposed website - has the power to enforce > it's own policies by using it's own contracts with the parties in question. > > This way the proposal collapses the differences between real world and AoC > at a single point within the organisation which is able to solve the problem. > >> 4. Are we advocating a particular policy/technical solution or is the >> implementation open to discussion in the GNSO and other policy groups >> within ICANN? > We - as a group - are limited to the such a proposal and might add some > personal reasoning (like this). > > Personally I do run such an "all-whois" website since 1996 and do have some > ideas how it should be implemented and which operational policy should be > enforced. But that's outside of our scope. > -- _______________________________________________ Rt4-whois mailing list Rt4-whois at icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/rt4-whois From bill.smith at paypal-inc.com Tue Feb 7 02:11:00 2012 From: bill.smith at paypal-inc.com (Smith, Bill) Date: Tue, 7 Feb 2012 02:11:00 +0000 Subject: [Rt4-whois] Questions on Recommendation 17 In-Reply-To: <01ff01cce502$dbf1e460$93d5ad20$@reiss@lex-ip.com> References: <4F2C2E79.7050208@kathykleiman.com> <20120206084815.GA21197@belenus.iks-jena.de> <4F2FEF85.5020307@kathykleiman.com>, <01ff01cce502$dbf1e460$93d5ad20$@reiss@lex-ip.com> Message-ID: I'm with Seth. The AoC seems clear On Feb 6, 2012, at 11:13 AM, "Seth M Reiss" wrote: > Let's let the AoC speaks for itself. > > "ICANN additionally commits to enforcing its existing policy relating to > WHOIS, subject to applicable laws. Such existing policy 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." > > Doesn't say that ICANN should play the operation role and it doesn't say > that ICANN should not. ICANN is required to implement measures to effect an > adequate result. I do recall discussing a portal, not sure if that was in > terms of ICANN operating the portal or ICANN contracting a third party to, > or maybe discussing both. > > Seth > > -----Original Message----- > From: rt4-whois-bounces at icann.org [mailto:rt4-whois-bounces at icann.org] On > Behalf Of Kathy Kleiman > Sent: Monday, February 06, 2012 5:20 AM > To: Lutz Donnerhacke > Cc: rt4-whois at icann.org > Subject: Re: [Rt4-whois] Questions on Recommendation 17 > > Hi Lutz, > Thank you for the detailed answers below. I am still working through > them and urge others to review them closely as well. I would very much > like to see the "all-whois" website you have been running since 1996 -- > would you be willing to share the link? > > There does seem to be a difference in how we view the AoC. I never saw > as **requiring ** ICANN to have an operational role in running websites, > and I don't remember such discussions in our meetings (did I sleep > through something?) I do remember discussing that ICANN -- with Whois > data as with so many other areas -- is responsible fo creating and > overseeing policies that implement the wording and goals of the AoC. > > I tend to have a sense that policy-making bodies are not great > operational bodies, and know there has been great push-back against > ICANN in other areas (e.g. the DNS-Cert discussion of 2010). > > I will send back more detailed comments shortly. Thank you for this > discussion online and, hopefully, in CR as well. And thanks for the link > to your website! > Best, > Kathy > > : >> On Fri, Feb 03, 2012 at 01:59:05PM -0500, Kathy Kleiman wrote: >>> I understand it, we are recommending a "dedicated, multilingual website" > to >>> provide thick Whois data (for thin gTLD registries, in one variation, and >>> all gTLD registries in the other): >> >> No, we are recommending a "dedicated, multilingual website" to provide a >> "centralized access to all whois data regardless of the underlying data >> structure". >> >>> 1. What is the underlying data structure of this website? Is all the >>> information going to be gathered into and run out of a California > database >>> run and owned by ICANN? >> No. The website traveresed the data structure down the chain of whois >> servers (starting at whois.iana.org). It does not store nor copy the whois >> data, besides some short time caching. >> >> It's similar to DNS: A recursive resolver does not copy and stores all the >> DNS records worldwide, but is able to obtain the necessary data on the > fly. >> >>> 2. Alternatively, might it be a website run by ICANN offering links to > the >>> registries and registrars who hold the full Whois data? >> No. The results should be present directly on this particular website in >> order to fulfill the requirements of the AoC literaly: >> >> maintain timely, unrestricted and public access to accurate and > complete >> WHOIS information, including registrant, technical, billing, and >> administrative contact information. >> >> In order to overcome the problems, shown by user experiance report, the >> website needs to be multilingual not only in terms of the user interface > but >> also in the presentation of the gathered data. >> >> Of course, the website needs to show the sources and the way how the >> information was obtained, where it is really stored and why. That's the >> minimal requirement from (my) understanding of (European) data protection >> laws. >> >>> 3. Do you think this would become the place in which all people search > for >>> all gTLD whois data? >> Yes, that's the intention of the proposal. >> >>> If so, could there be a scalability problem if all >>> people (law enforcement, domain name purchasers, etc) go to one website > for >>> all Whois searches? Is there some liability to ICANN should such a site > go >>> down? >> Yes, that's the reasoning behind the proposal: The AoC urges ICANN to >> provide such an unrestricted access. Unfortunly many registries does rate >> limit the access or does not provide all the required data. >> >> ICANN - as the operator of the proposed website - has the power to enforce >> it's own policies by using it's own contracts with the parties in > question. >> >> This way the proposal collapses the differences between real world and AoC >> at a single point within the organisation which is able to solve the > problem. >> >>> 4. Are we advocating a particular policy/technical solution or is the >>> implementation open to discussion in the GNSO and other policy groups >>> within ICANN? >> We - as a group - are limited to the such a proposal and might add some >> personal reasoning (like this). >> >> Personally I do run such an "all-whois" website since 1996 and do have > some >> ideas how it should be implemented and which operational policy should be >> enforced. But that's outside of our scope. >> > > > -- > > > > _______________________________________________ > 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 From bill.smith at paypal-inc.com Tue Feb 7 02:17:10 2012 From: bill.smith at paypal-inc.com (Smith, Bill) Date: Tue, 7 Feb 2012 02:17:10 +0000 Subject: [Rt4-whois] Questions on Recommendation 17 In-Reply-To: References: <4F2C2E79.7050208@kathykleiman.com> <20120206084815.GA21197@belenus.iks-jena.de> <4F2FEF85.5020307@kathykleiman.com>, <01ff01cce502$dbf1e460$93d5ad20$@reiss@lex-ip.com>, Message-ID: Wasn't quite done with that message. The AoC seems quite clear that there is a requirement on ICANN to "implement measures", any measures that satisfy the requirement. On Feb 6, 2012, at 6:11 PM, "Smith, Bill" wrote: > I'm with Seth. The AoC seems clear > > > > On Feb 6, 2012, at 11:13 AM, "Seth M Reiss" wrote: > >> Let's let the AoC speaks for itself. >> >> "ICANN additionally commits to enforcing its existing policy relating to >> WHOIS, subject to applicable laws. Such existing policy 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." >> >> Doesn't say that ICANN should play the operation role and it doesn't say >> that ICANN should not. ICANN is required to implement measures to effect an >> adequate result. I do recall discussing a portal, not sure if that was in >> terms of ICANN operating the portal or ICANN contracting a third party to, >> or maybe discussing both. >> >> Seth >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: rt4-whois-bounces at icann.org [mailto:rt4-whois-bounces at icann.org] On >> Behalf Of Kathy Kleiman >> Sent: Monday, February 06, 2012 5:20 AM >> To: Lutz Donnerhacke >> Cc: rt4-whois at icann.org >> Subject: Re: [Rt4-whois] Questions on Recommendation 17 >> >> Hi Lutz, >> Thank you for the detailed answers below. I am still working through >> them and urge others to review them closely as well. I would very much >> like to see the "all-whois" website you have been running since 1996 -- >> would you be willing to share the link? >> >> There does seem to be a difference in how we view the AoC. I never saw >> as **requiring ** ICANN to have an operational role in running websites, >> and I don't remember such discussions in our meetings (did I sleep >> through something?) I do remember discussing that ICANN -- with Whois >> data as with so many other areas -- is responsible fo creating and >> overseeing policies that implement the wording and goals of the AoC. >> >> I tend to have a sense that policy-making bodies are not great >> operational bodies, and know there has been great push-back against >> ICANN in other areas (e.g. the DNS-Cert discussion of 2010). >> >> I will send back more detailed comments shortly. Thank you for this >> discussion online and, hopefully, in CR as well. And thanks for the link >> to your website! >> Best, >> Kathy >> >> : >>> On Fri, Feb 03, 2012 at 01:59:05PM -0500, Kathy Kleiman wrote: >>>> I understand it, we are recommending a "dedicated, multilingual website" >> to >>>> provide thick Whois data (for thin gTLD registries, in one variation, and >>>> all gTLD registries in the other): >>> >>> No, we are recommending a "dedicated, multilingual website" to provide a >>> "centralized access to all whois data regardless of the underlying data >>> structure". >>> >>>> 1. What is the underlying data structure of this website? Is all the >>>> information going to be gathered into and run out of a California >> database >>>> run and owned by ICANN? >>> No. The website traveresed the data structure down the chain of whois >>> servers (starting at whois.iana.org). It does not store nor copy the whois >>> data, besides some short time caching. >>> >>> It's similar to DNS: A recursive resolver does not copy and stores all the >>> DNS records worldwide, but is able to obtain the necessary data on the >> fly. >>> >>>> 2. Alternatively, might it be a website run by ICANN offering links to >> the >>>> registries and registrars who hold the full Whois data? >>> No. The results should be present directly on this particular website in >>> order to fulfill the requirements of the AoC literaly: >>> >>> maintain timely, unrestricted and public access to accurate and >> complete >>> WHOIS information, including registrant, technical, billing, and >>> administrative contact information. >>> >>> In order to overcome the problems, shown by user experiance report, the >>> website needs to be multilingual not only in terms of the user interface >> but >>> also in the presentation of the gathered data. >>> >>> Of course, the website needs to show the sources and the way how the >>> information was obtained, where it is really stored and why. That's the >>> minimal requirement from (my) understanding of (European) data protection >>> laws. >>> >>>> 3. Do you think this would become the place in which all people search >> for >>>> all gTLD whois data? >>> Yes, that's the intention of the proposal. >>> >>>> If so, could there be a scalability problem if all >>>> people (law enforcement, domain name purchasers, etc) go to one website >> for >>>> all Whois searches? Is there some liability to ICANN should such a site >> go >>>> down? >>> Yes, that's the reasoning behind the proposal: The AoC urges ICANN to >>> provide such an unrestricted access. Unfortunly many registries does rate >>> limit the access or does not provide all the required data. >>> >>> ICANN - as the operator of the proposed website - has the power to enforce >>> it's own policies by using it's own contracts with the parties in >> question. >>> >>> This way the proposal collapses the differences between real world and AoC >>> at a single point within the organisation which is able to solve the >> problem. >>> >>>> 4. Are we advocating a particular policy/technical solution or is the >>>> implementation open to discussion in the GNSO and other policy groups >>>> within ICANN? >>> We - as a group - are limited to the such a proposal and might add some >>> personal reasoning (like this). >>> >>> Personally I do run such an "all-whois" website since 1996 and do have >> some >>> ideas how it should be implemented and which operational policy should be >>> enforced. But that's outside of our scope. >>> >> >> >> -- >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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 From kathy at kathykleiman.com Tue Feb 7 13:07:39 2012 From: kathy at kathykleiman.com (Kathy Kleiman) Date: Tue, 07 Feb 2012 08:07:39 -0500 Subject: [Rt4-whois] Questions on Recommendation 17 In-Reply-To: <01ff01cce502$dbf1e460$93d5ad20$@reiss@lex-ip.com> References: <4F2C2E79.7050208@kathykleiman.com> <20120206084815.GA21197@belenus.iks-jena.de> <4F2FEF85.5020307@kathykleiman.com> <01ff01cce502$dbf1e460$93d5ad20$@reiss@lex-ip.com> Message-ID: <4F31221B.8090204@kathykleiman.com> Interesting... tx Seth! Kathy: > Let's let the AoC speaks for itself. > > "ICANN additionally commits to enforcing its existing policy relating to > WHOIS, subject to applicable laws. Such existing policy 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." > > Doesn't say that ICANN should play the operation role and it doesn't say > that ICANN should not. ICANN is required to implement measures to effect an > adequate result. I do recall discussing a portal, not sure if that was in > terms of ICANN operating the portal or ICANN contracting a third party to, > or maybe discussing both. > > Seth > > -----Original Message----- > From: rt4-whois-bounces at icann.org [mailto:rt4-whois-bounces at icann.org] On > Behalf Of Kathy Kleiman > Sent: Monday, February 06, 2012 5:20 AM > To: Lutz Donnerhacke > Cc: rt4-whois at icann.org > Subject: Re: [Rt4-whois] Questions on Recommendation 17 > > Hi Lutz, > Thank you for the detailed answers below. I am still working through > them and urge others to review them closely as well. I would very much > like to see the "all-whois" website you have been running since 1996 -- > would you be willing to share the link? > > There does seem to be a difference in how we view the AoC. I never saw > as **requiring ** ICANN to have an operational role in running websites, > and I don't remember such discussions in our meetings (did I sleep > through something?) I do remember discussing that ICANN -- with Whois > data as with so many other areas -- is responsible fo creating and > overseeing policies that implement the wording and goals of the AoC. > > I tend to have a sense that policy-making bodies are not great > operational bodies, and know there has been great push-back against > ICANN in other areas (e.g. the DNS-Cert discussion of 2010). > > I will send back more detailed comments shortly. Thank you for this > discussion online and, hopefully, in CR as well. And thanks for the link > to your website! > Best, > Kathy > > : >> On Fri, Feb 03, 2012 at 01:59:05PM -0500, Kathy Kleiman wrote: >>> I understand it, we are recommending a "dedicated, multilingual website" > to >>> provide thick Whois data (for thin gTLD registries, in one variation, and >>> all gTLD registries in the other): >> No, we are recommending a "dedicated, multilingual website" to provide a >> "centralized access to all whois data regardless of the underlying data >> structure". >> >>> 1. What is the underlying data structure of this website? Is all the >>> information going to be gathered into and run out of a California > database >>> run and owned by ICANN? >> No. The website traveresed the data structure down the chain of whois >> servers (starting at whois.iana.org). It does not store nor copy the whois >> data, besides some short time caching. >> >> It's similar to DNS: A recursive resolver does not copy and stores all the >> DNS records worldwide, but is able to obtain the necessary data on the > fly. >>> 2. Alternatively, might it be a website run by ICANN offering links to > the >>> registries and registrars who hold the full Whois data? >> No. The results should be present directly on this particular website in >> order to fulfill the requirements of the AoC literaly: >> >> maintain timely, unrestricted and public access to accurate and > complete >> WHOIS information, including registrant, technical, billing, and >> administrative contact information. >> >> In order to overcome the problems, shown by user experiance report, the >> website needs to be multilingual not only in terms of the user interface > but >> also in the presentation of the gathered data. >> >> Of course, the website needs to show the sources and the way how the >> information was obtained, where it is really stored and why. That's the >> minimal requirement from (my) understanding of (European) data protection >> laws. >> >>> 3. Do you think this would become the place in which all people search > for >>> all gTLD whois data? >> Yes, that's the intention of the proposal. >> >>> If so, could there be a scalability problem if all >>> people (law enforcement, domain name purchasers, etc) go to one website > for >>> all Whois searches? Is there some liability to ICANN should such a site > go >>> down? >> Yes, that's the reasoning behind the proposal: The AoC urges ICANN to >> provide such an unrestricted access. Unfortunly many registries does rate >> limit the access or does not provide all the required data. >> >> ICANN - as the operator of the proposed website - has the power to enforce >> it's own policies by using it's own contracts with the parties in > question. >> This way the proposal collapses the differences between real world and AoC >> at a single point within the organisation which is able to solve the > problem. >>> 4. Are we advocating a particular policy/technical solution or is the >>> implementation open to discussion in the GNSO and other policy groups >>> within ICANN? >> We - as a group - are limited to the such a proposal and might add some >> personal reasoning (like this). >> >> Personally I do run such an "all-whois" website since 1996 and do have > some >> ideas how it should be implemented and which operational policy should be >> enforced. But that's outside of our scope. >> > -- From kathy at kathykleiman.com Tue Feb 7 13:20:57 2012 From: kathy at kathykleiman.com (Kathy Kleiman) Date: Tue, 07 Feb 2012 08:20:57 -0500 Subject: [Rt4-whois] Questions on Recommendation 17 In-Reply-To: <20120206160234.GA30844@belenus.iks-jena.de> References: <4F2C2E79.7050208@kathykleiman.com> <20120206084815.GA21197@belenus.iks-jena.de> <4F2FEF85.5020307@kathykleiman.com> <20120206160234.GA30844@belenus.iks-jena.de> Message-ID: <4F312539.8010705@kathykleiman.com> Lutz, thank you for the link, and the discussion. I personally don't see a clear requirement, under the AOC, for ICANN to run a service itself (or contract for the service). It is about the policies... Historically, I thought your suggestion of the portal arose (or got momentum) in our discussions because of "findability" and some of the recent work (work towards the end of our year) that showed the survey participants having trouble finding Whois data generally and thick Whois data in particular. So I thought and agree that we should address the issue of "findability" which, I believe, has both policy and operational possibilities. Frankly, I think education, pointers, explanations, and clarifications COULD be run by ICANN -- to help clarify the field (e.g., a page with links to every thick and thin gTLD registry/registrar and an overview of thick and thin registries and where to find Whois data). On the flip side, I would like to better understand the implications of ICANN running a search portal -- and what happens when all Whois searches go through one site. As an old CS/IT person, that was always the scenario we wanted to avoid... and today the searches (as we so well know) are decentralized. I hope people will comment. On a related note, please see the comments from ICANN Chair Steve Crocker (who created the RFC/Request for Comment process years ago within the IETF). They are well-reasoned and thorough and we need to think through our answers, responses, and possible clarifications, changes, expansions, additional reasoning, etc. (as with all comments). I am offline today teaching, but back later. Lutz, I am so sorry you can't join us in CR, and truly hope for rapid and full recovery! All the best, Kathy : > On Mon, Feb 06, 2012 at 10:19:33AM -0500, Kathy Kleiman wrote: >> Thank you for the detailed answers below. I am still working through them >> and urge others to review them closely as well. I would very much like to >> see the "all-whois" website you have been running since 1996 -- would you >> be willing to share the link? > The current state (focused on the German speaking community) is > http://www.iks-jena.de/eng/Tools/Whois > > It's mostly useful for looking up IP addresses, especially IPv6 transition > addresses like 2001:0:d911:c0d9:0:fbde:3d50:212c or 2002:d911:c0d9::1 > > The majority of users come from the German Law Enforcement (low level > crime), simply because they are happy to call German speaking people in the > case of trouble. > >> There does seem to be a difference in how we view the AoC. I never saw as >> **requiring ** ICANN to have an operational role in running websites > You are absolutly right. The AoC does not urge ICANN to operate a service at > it's own. But - in order to fulfill the requirements from the AoC - the only > party, which can run such a service, is ICANN itself. Therefore the proposal. > >> I will send back more detailed comments shortly. Thank you for this >> discussion online and, hopefully, in CR as well. And thanks for the link to > No, I'll not make it to CR. I was ill (recurrent corneal erosion) between > the years and be urged to do not travel that far in the next few months. -- From sharon.lemon at soca.x.gsi.gov.uk Tue Feb 7 12:57:26 2012 From: sharon.lemon at soca.x.gsi.gov.uk (LEMON, Sharon) Date: Tue, 7 Feb 2012 12:57:26 +0000 Subject: [Rt4-whois] FW: If you're suffering from insomnia Message-ID: <3062FB662B110E4A9F14C63284D07FF7050C69407193@soca.x.gsi.gov.uk> NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED Team, I hope you are well - READ THIS, it's brilliant. Sharon Sharon LEMON OBE Deputy Director Cyber and Forensics Serious and Organised Crime Agency (SOCA) 07768 290902 0207 855 2800 -----Original Message----- From: John Carr [mailto:john.carr49 at btinternet.com] Sent: 06 February 2012 21:31 To: LEMON, Sharon Subject: If you're suffering from insomnia Hi Shazza, My blog went up today. Rather annoyingly I originally put up one I finished writing yesterday, not the one I had been working on today. But I think I've caught up now. John Check out my blog: http://johnc1912.wordpress.com Follow me on Twitter: @johnc1912 This email was received from the INTERNET and scanned by the Government Secure Intranet anti-virus service supplied by Cable&Wireless Worldwide in partnership with MessageLabs. (CCTM Certificate Number 2009/09/0052.) In case of problems, please call your organisation's IT Helpdesk. Communications via the GSi may be automatically logged, monitored and/or recorded for legal purposes. All E-Mail sent and received by SOCA is scanned and subject to assessment. Messages sent or received by SOCA staff are not private and may be the subject of lawful business monitoring. E-Mail may be passed at any time and without notice to an appropriate branch within SOCA, on authority from the Director General or his Deputy for analysis. This E-Mail and any files transmitted with it are intended solely for the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you have received this message in error, please contact the sender as soon as possible. This information is supplied in confidence by SOCA, and is exempt from disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act 2000. It may also be subject to exemption under other UK legislation. Onward disclosure may be unlawful, for example, under the Data Protection Act 1998. Requests for disclosure to the public must be referred to the SOCA FOI single point of contact, by email on PICUEnquiries at soca.x.gsi.gov.uk or by telephoning 0870 268 8677. All E-Mail sent and received by SOCA is scanned and subject to assessment. Messages sent or received by SOCA staff are not private and may be the subject of lawful business monitoring. E-Mail may be passed at any time and without notice to an appropriate branch within SOCA, on authority from the Director General or his Deputy for analysis. This E-Mail and any files transmitted with it are intended solely for the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you have received this message in error, please contact the sender as soon as possible. The original of this email was scanned for viruses by the Government Secure Intranet virus scanning service supplied by Cable&Wireless Worldwide in partnership with MessageLabs. (CCTM Certificate Number 2009/09/0052.) On leaving the GSi this email was certified virus free. Communications via the GSi may be automatically logged, monitored and/or recorded for legal purposes. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/rt4-whois/attachments/20120207/aadeec81/attachment.html From lutz at iks-jena.de Tue Feb 7 14:51:25 2012 From: lutz at iks-jena.de (Lutz Donnerhacke) Date: Tue, 7 Feb 2012 15:51:25 +0100 Subject: [Rt4-whois] Questions on Recommendation 17 In-Reply-To: <4F312539.8010705@kathykleiman.com> References: <4F2C2E79.7050208@kathykleiman.com> <20120206084815.GA21197@belenus.iks-jena.de> <4F2FEF85.5020307@kathykleiman.com> <20120206160234.GA30844@belenus.iks-jena.de> <4F312539.8010705@kathykleiman.com> Message-ID: <20120207145125.GA30284@belenus.iks-jena.de> On Tue, Feb 07, 2012 at 08:20:57AM -0500, Kathy Kleiman wrote: > On a related note, please see the comments from ICANN Chair Steve Crocker > (who created the RFC/Request for Comment process years ago within the > IETF). They are well-reasoned and thorough and we need to think through our > answers, responses, and possible clarifications, changes, expansions, > additional reasoning, etc. (as with all comments). I had a short discussion with him last week. He seems to like some more technical background in the report as well as a chapter on use cases of whois. I think I should address this topic. Please remind me, if I'm going to become lazy again. From bill.smith at paypal-inc.com Tue Feb 7 15:18:26 2012 From: bill.smith at paypal-inc.com (Smith, Bill) Date: Tue, 7 Feb 2012 15:18:26 +0000 Subject: [Rt4-whois] If you're suffering from insomnia In-Reply-To: <3062FB662B110E4A9F14C63284D07FF7050C69407193@soca.x.gsi.gov.uk> References: <3062FB662B110E4A9F14C63284D07FF7050C69407193@soca.x.gsi.gov.uk> Message-ID: <4AD59FDF-10DD-4338-9DA7-FF427C109CB2@paypal.com> A *very* enjoyable read this morning. Except for the weather, it seems like I'm in London. Thanks for forwarding! Be well. On Feb 7, 2012, at 4:57 AM, LEMON, Sharon wrote: NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED Team, I hope you are well - READ THIS, it's brilliant. Sharon Sharon LEMON OBE Deputy Director Cyber and Forensics Serious and Organised Crime Agency (SOCA) 07768 290902 0207 855 2800 -----Original Message----- From: John Carr [mailto:john.carr49 at btinternet.com] Sent: 06 February 2012 21:31 To: LEMON, Sharon Subject: If you're suffering from insomnia Hi Shazza, My blog went up today. Rather annoyingly I originally put up one I finished writing yesterday, not the one I had been working on today. But I think I?ve caught up now. John Check out my blog: http://johnc1912.wordpress.com Follow me on Twitter: @johnc1912 This email was received from the INTERNET and scanned by the Government Secure Intranet anti-virus service supplied by Cable&Wireless Worldwide in partnership with MessageLabs. (CCTM Certificate Number 2009/09/0052.) In case of problems, please call your organisation?s IT Helpdesk. Communications via the GSi may be automatically logged, monitored and/or recorded for legal purposes. All E-Mail sent and received by SOCA is scanned and subject to assessment. Messages sent or received by SOCA staff are not private and may be the subject of lawful business monitoring. E-Mail may be passed at any time and without notice to an appropriate branch within SOCA, on authority from the Director General or his Deputy for analysis. This E-Mail and any files transmitted with it are intended solely for the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you have received this message in error, please contact the sender as soon as possible. This information is supplied in confidence by SOCA, and is exempt from disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act 2000. It may also be subject to exemption under other UK legislation. Onward disclosure may be unlawful, for example, under the Data Protection Act 1998. Requests for disclosure to the public must be referred to the SOCA FOI single point of contact, by email on PICUEnquiries at soca.x.gsi.gov.uk or by telephoning 0870 268 8677. All E-Mail sent and received by SOCA is scanned and subject to assessment. Messages sent or received by SOCA staff are not private and may be the subject of lawful business monitoring. E-Mail may be passed at any time and without notice to an appropriate branch within SOCA, on authority from the Director General or his Deputy for analysis. This E-Mail and any files transmitted with it are intended solely for the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you have received this message in error, please contact the sender as soon as possible. The original of this email was scanned for viruses by the Government Secure Intranet virus scanning service supplied by Cable&Wireless Worldwide in partnership with MessageLabs. (CCTM Certificate Number 2009/09/0052.) On leaving the GSi this email was certified virus free. Communications via the GSi may be automatically logged, monitored and/or recorded for legal purposes. _______________________________________________ Rt4-whois mailing list Rt4-whois at icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/rt4-whois From jbladel at godaddy.com Tue Feb 7 15:30:50 2012 From: jbladel at godaddy.com (James M. Bladel) Date: Tue, 07 Feb 2012 08:30:50 -0700 Subject: [Rt4-whois] FW: If you're suffering from insomnia Message-ID: <20120207083050.9c1b16d3983f34082b49b9baf8cec04a.f0b6b42936.wbe@email00.secureserver.net> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/rt4-whois/attachments/20120207/de7f4cf2/attachment.html From lgoodendorf at versprite.com Tue Feb 7 16:13:27 2012 From: lgoodendorf at versprite.com (Lynn Goodendorf) Date: Tue, 7 Feb 2012 16:13:27 +0000 Subject: [Rt4-whois] If you're suffering from insomnia In-Reply-To: <3062FB662B110E4A9F14C63284D07FF7050C69407193@soca.x.gsi.gov.uk> References: <3062FB662B110E4A9F14C63284D07FF7050C69407193@soca.x.gsi.gov.uk> Message-ID: <0556BB5BB3ED614D9261441DC56B1AB50E90603A@GQ-EXCH002.greenqube.local> Thoroughly enjoyed reading this blog and agree with the common sense views expressed. Lynn ________________________________ From: rt4-whois-bounces at icann.org [rt4-whois-bounces at icann.org] on behalf of LEMON, Sharon [sharon.lemon at soca.x.gsi.gov.uk] Sent: Tuesday, February 07, 2012 7:57 AM To: rt4-whois at icann.org Subject: [Rt4-whois] FW: If you're suffering from insomnia NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED Team, I hope you are well - READ THIS, it's brilliant. Sharon Sharon LEMON OBE Deputy Director Cyber and Forensics Serious and Organised Crime Agency (SOCA) 07768 290902 0207 855 2800 -----Original Message----- From: John Carr [mailto:john.carr49 at btinternet.com] Sent: 06 February 2012 21:31 To: LEMON, Sharon Subject: If you're suffering from insomnia Hi Shazza, My blog went up today. Rather annoyingly I originally put up one I finished writing yesterday, not the one I had been working on today. But I think I?ve caught up now. John Check out my blog: http://johnc1912.wordpress.com Follow me on Twitter: @johnc1912 This email was received from the INTERNET and scanned by the Government Secure Intranet anti-virus service supplied by Cable&Wireless Worldwide in partnership with MessageLabs. (CCTM Certificate Number 2009/09/0052.) In case of problems, please call your organisation?s IT Helpdesk. Communications via the GSi may be automatically logged, monitored and/or recorded for legal purposes. All E-Mail sent and received by SOCA is scanned and subject to assessment. Messages sent or received by SOCA staff are not private and may be the subject of lawful business monitoring. E-Mail may be passed at any time and without notice to an appropriate branch within SOCA, on authority from the Director General or his Deputy for analysis. This E-Mail and any files transmitted with it are intended solely for the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you have received this message in error, please contact the sender as soon as possible. This information is supplied in confidence by SOCA, and is exempt from disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act 2000. It may also be subject to exemption under other UK legislation. Onward disclosure may be unlawful, for example, under the Data Protection Act 1998. Requests for disclosure to the public must be referred to the SOCA FOI single point of contact, by email on PICUEnquiries at soca.x.gsi.gov.uk or by telephoning 0870 268 8677. All E-Mail sent and received by SOCA is scanned and subject to assessment. Messages sent or received by SOCA staff are not private and may be the subject of lawful business monitoring. E-Mail may be passed at any time and without notice to an appropriate branch within SOCA, on authority from the Director General or his Deputy for analysis. This E-Mail and any files transmitted with it are intended solely for the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you have received this message in error, please contact the sender as soon as possible. The original of this email was scanned for viruses by the Government Secure Intranet virus scanning service supplied by Cable&Wireless Worldwide in partnership with MessageLabs. (CCTM Certificate Number 2009/09/0052.) On leaving the GSi this email was certified virus free. Communications via the GSi may be automatically logged, monitored and/or recorded for legal purposes. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/rt4-whois/attachments/20120207/21dfc0df/attachment.html From emily at emilytaylor.eu Tue Feb 7 16:51:40 2012 From: emily at emilytaylor.eu (Emily Taylor) Date: Tue, 7 Feb 2012 17:51:40 +0100 Subject: [Rt4-whois] Call with GAC next week Message-ID: <-3299592914137205821@unknownmsgid> Hi Alice and Olof I am thinking about our GAC call next week, and wondering how many team members and GAC members are likely to be able to join, as it will be very early in Europe and very late in North America. I understand that sometimes the GAC do their coordination calls in two installments to suit Western and Eastern time zones. I was wondering whether we could suggest this format to see if we can get fuller participation than we are likely to have with the current slot. Please would RT members indicate whether or not they will be able to make the call, and Alice please would you explore this idea with the GAC secretariat. Kind regards Emily Sent from my iPad From kathy at kathykleiman.com Wed Feb 8 17:57:04 2012 From: kathy at kathykleiman.com (Kathy Kleiman) Date: Wed, 08 Feb 2012 12:57:04 -0500 Subject: [Rt4-whois] Questions on Recommendation 17 In-Reply-To: <20120206084815.GA21197@belenus.iks-jena.de> References: <4F2C2E79.7050208@kathykleiman.com> <20120206084815.GA21197@belenus.iks-jena.de> Message-ID: <4F32B770.1070404@kathykleiman.com> Lutz wrote: > Yes, that's the reasoning behind the proposal: The AoC urges ICANN to > provide such an unrestricted access. Unfortunly many registries does rate > limit the access or does not provide all the required data. Hi Lutz, Yes, the registrars and registries rate limit because they feel required to. It is part of the Whois Marketing Restriction Policy of 2004 -- one of the few bright spots of the type of consensus from the GNSO we have been looking for -- that bars registries and registrars from allowing data mining of the Whois databases for spam, other forms of unwanted advertising, profiling, etc. (Quote from our draft report, chapter 3, is below.) Rate limiting is a tried and true way of preventing data mining, as you know. /So here's a followup question: Are we saying, somehow, that the language of the AOC trumps and takes precedence over this Consensus Policy? If so, I think we really need to spell it out for the community and the GNSO. /But somehow, I don't think we meant to overturn this marketing restriction policy. As I have mentioned, I think we should be very carefully of recommended specific technical fixes -- but lay out the problem, and the need for a solution, and allow the Community to find it. Chapter 3 Excerpt: "WHOIS Marketing Restriction Policy: This policy, a combination of two distinct GNSO policy recommendations, creates two policy changes to the Registrar Accreditation Agreement: a. Registrars must require third parties "to agree not to use the [Whois] data to allow, enable, or otherwise support any marketing activities." b. Registrars must "agree not to sell or redistribute the [Whois] data" (with some exceptions). http://www.icann.org/en/registrars/wmrp.htm/" Best, Kathy / -- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/rt4-whois/attachments/20120208/61be32f7/attachment.html From kathy at kathykleiman.com Wed Feb 8 18:01:42 2012 From: kathy at kathykleiman.com (Kathy Kleiman) Date: Wed, 08 Feb 2012 13:01:42 -0500 Subject: [Rt4-whois] Questions on Recommendation 17 In-Reply-To: References: <4F2C2E79.7050208@kathykleiman.com> <20120206084815.GA21197@belenus.iks-jena.de> <4F2FEF85.5020307@kathykleiman.com>, <01ff01cce502$dbf1e460$93d5ad20$@reiss@lex-ip.com>, Message-ID: <4F32B886.2060504@kathykleiman.com> Agreed!: > Wasn't quite done with that message. > > The AoC seems quite clear that there is a requirement on ICANN to "implement measures", any measures that satisfy the requirement. > > > > On Feb 6, 2012, at 6:11 PM, "Smith, Bill" wrote: > >> I'm with Seth. The AoC seems clear >> >> >> >> On Feb 6, 2012, at 11:13 AM, "Seth M Reiss" wrote: >> >>> Let's let the AoC speaks for itself. >>> >>> "ICANN additionally commits to enforcing its existing policy relating to >>> WHOIS, subject to applicable laws. Such existing policy 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." >>> >>> Doesn't say that ICANN should play the operation role and it doesn't say >>> that ICANN should not. ICANN is required to implement measures to effect an >>> adequate result. I do recall discussing a portal, not sure if that was in >>> terms of ICANN operating the portal or ICANN contracting a third party to, >>> or maybe discussing both. >>> >>> Seth >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: rt4-whois-bounces at icann.org [mailto:rt4-whois-bounces at icann.org] On >>> Behalf Of Kathy Kleiman >>> Sent: Monday, February 06, 2012 5:20 AM >>> To: Lutz Donnerhacke >>> Cc: rt4-whois at icann.org >>> Subject: Re: [Rt4-whois] Questions on Recommendation 17 >>> >>> Hi Lutz, >>> Thank you for the detailed answers below. I am still working through >>> them and urge others to review them closely as well. I would very much >>> like to see the "all-whois" website you have been running since 1996 -- >>> would you be willing to share the link? >>> >>> There does seem to be a difference in how we view the AoC. I never saw >>> as **requiring ** ICANN to have an operational role in running websites, >>> and I don't remember such discussions in our meetings (did I sleep >>> through something?) I do remember discussing that ICANN -- with Whois >>> data as with so many other areas -- is responsible fo creating and >>> overseeing policies that implement the wording and goals of the AoC. >>> >>> I tend to have a sense that policy-making bodies are not great >>> operational bodies, and know there has been great push-back against >>> ICANN in other areas (e.g. the DNS-Cert discussion of 2010). >>> >>> I will send back more detailed comments shortly. Thank you for this >>> discussion online and, hopefully, in CR as well. And thanks for the link >>> to your website! >>> Best, >>> Kathy >>> >>> : >>>> On Fri, Feb 03, 2012 at 01:59:05PM -0500, Kathy Kleiman wrote: >>>>> I understand it, we are recommending a "dedicated, multilingual website" >>> to >>>>> provide thick Whois data (for thin gTLD registries, in one variation, and >>>>> all gTLD registries in the other): >>>> No, we are recommending a "dedicated, multilingual website" to provide a >>>> "centralized access to all whois data regardless of the underlying data >>>> structure". >>>> >>>>> 1. What is the underlying data structure of this website? Is all the >>>>> information going to be gathered into and run out of a California >>> database >>>>> run and owned by ICANN? >>>> No. The website traveresed the data structure down the chain of whois >>>> servers (starting at whois.iana.org). It does not store nor copy the whois >>>> data, besides some short time caching. >>>> >>>> It's similar to DNS: A recursive resolver does not copy and stores all the >>>> DNS records worldwide, but is able to obtain the necessary data on the >>> fly. >>>>> 2. Alternatively, might it be a website run by ICANN offering links to >>> the >>>>> registries and registrars who hold the full Whois data? >>>> No. The results should be present directly on this particular website in >>>> order to fulfill the requirements of the AoC literaly: >>>> >>>> maintain timely, unrestricted and public access to accurate and >>> complete >>>> WHOIS information, including registrant, technical, billing, and >>>> administrative contact information. >>>> >>>> In order to overcome the problems, shown by user experiance report, the >>>> website needs to be multilingual not only in terms of the user interface >>> but >>>> also in the presentation of the gathered data. >>>> >>>> Of course, the website needs to show the sources and the way how the >>>> information was obtained, where it is really stored and why. That's the >>>> minimal requirement from (my) understanding of (European) data protection >>>> laws. >>>> >>>>> 3. Do you think this would become the place in which all people search >>> for >>>>> all gTLD whois data? >>>> Yes, that's the intention of the proposal. >>>> >>>>> If so, could there be a scalability problem if all >>>>> people (law enforcement, domain name purchasers, etc) go to one website >>> for >>>>> all Whois searches? Is there some liability to ICANN should such a site >>> go >>>>> down? >>>> Yes, that's the reasoning behind the proposal: The AoC urges ICANN to >>>> provide such an unrestricted access. Unfortunly many registries does rate >>>> limit the access or does not provide all the required data. >>>> >>>> ICANN - as the operator of the proposed website - has the power to enforce >>>> it's own policies by using it's own contracts with the parties in >>> question. >>>> This way the proposal collapses the differences between real world and AoC >>>> at a single point within the organisation which is able to solve the >>> problem. >>>>> 4. Are we advocating a particular policy/technical solution or is the >>>>> implementation open to discussion in the GNSO and other policy groups >>>>> within ICANN? >>>> We - as a group - are limited to the such a proposal and might add some >>>> personal reasoning (like this). >>>> >>>> Personally I do run such an "all-whois" website since 1996 and do have >>> some >>>> ideas how it should be implemented and which operational policy should be >>>> enforced. But that's outside of our scope. >>>> >>> >>> -- >>> >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> 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 -- From bill.smith at paypal-inc.com Wed Feb 8 18:13:15 2012 From: bill.smith at paypal-inc.com (Smith, Bill) Date: Wed, 8 Feb 2012 18:13:15 +0000 Subject: [Rt4-whois] Questions on Recommendation 17 In-Reply-To: <4F32B770.1070404@kathykleiman.com> References: <4F2C2E79.7050208@kathykleiman.com> <20120206084815.GA21197@belenus.iks-jena.de> <4F32B770.1070404@kathykleiman.com> Message-ID: <95A83B86-DFE6-4089-B2E5-7DBD703E0C5C@paypal.com> I see nothing in the policy that *requires* rate limiting over port 43. The referenced policy, now part of the RAA, refers to *bulk* access, nothing more, nothing less. If the contracted parties are relying on this language as a means to justify port 43 rate limiting, they are employing *creative* reading of the language. On Feb 8, 2012, at 9:57 AM, Kathy Kleiman wrote: Lutz wrote: Yes, that's the reasoning behind the proposal: The AoC urges ICANN to provide such an unrestricted access. Unfortunly many registries does rate limit the access or does not provide all the required data. Hi Lutz, Yes, the registrars and registries rate limit because they feel required to. It is part of the Whois Marketing Restriction Policy of 2004 -- one of the few bright spots of the type of consensus from the GNSO we have been looking for -- that bars registries and registrars from allowing data mining of the Whois databases for spam, other forms of unwanted advertising, profiling, etc. (Quote from our draft report, chapter 3, is below.) Rate limiting is a tried and true way of preventing data mining, as you know. So here's a followup question: Are we saying, somehow, that the language of the AOC trumps and takes precedence over this Consensus Policy? If so, I think we really need to spell it out for the community and the GNSO. But somehow, I don't think we meant to overturn this marketing restriction policy. As I have mentioned, I think we should be very carefully of recommended specific technical fixes -- but lay out the problem, and the need for a solution, and allow the Community to find it. Chapter 3 Excerpt: "WHOIS Marketing Restriction Policy: This policy, a combination of two distinct GNSO policy recommendations, creates two policy changes to the Registrar Accreditation Agreement: a. Registrars must require third parties ?to agree not to use the [Whois] data to allow, enable, or otherwise support any marketing activities.? b. Registrars must ?agree not to sell or redistribute the [Whois] data? (with some exceptions). http://www.icann.org/en/registrars/wmrp.htm" Best, Kathy -- _______________________________________________ Rt4-whois mailing list Rt4-whois at icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/rt4-whois From seth.reiss at lex-ip.com Wed Feb 8 18:31:14 2012 From: seth.reiss at lex-ip.com (Seth M Reiss) Date: Wed, 8 Feb 2012 08:31:14 -1000 Subject: [Rt4-whois] Questions on Recommendation 17 In-Reply-To: <4F32B770.1070404@kathykleiman.com> References: <4F2C2E79.7050208@kathykleiman.com> <20120206084815.GA21197@belenus.iks-jena.de> <4F32B770.1070404@kathykleiman.com> Message-ID: <01a501cce68f$d7a68cb0$86f3a610$@reiss@lex-ip.com> I am not sure why the AoC could not trump Consensus Policy if that is what ICANN intended when it signed the AoC. I am not saying this is a desirable result on this issue - that the AoC intended to set aside the Whois Marketing Restricting Policy - I suspect most of us would want that policy retained; but the question of whether the AoC can be construed to require changes to policies, agreements and the like is probably a question implicating the interaction of contract and corporate law in this instance. One cannot simply say that the AoC is subservient to all policy created to date. We do not question that the AoC potentially implicates changes to the RAA, for example. So why could it not also implicate changes to a consensus policy? How we get there without running afoul of the ICANN articles and bylaws is probably a separate question. Seth From: rt4-whois-bounces at icann.org [mailto:rt4-whois-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Kathy Kleiman Sent: Wednesday, February 08, 2012 7:57 AM To: Lutz Donnerhacke Cc: rt4-whois at icann.org Subject: Re: [Rt4-whois] Questions on Recommendation 17 Lutz wrote: Yes, that's the reasoning behind the proposal: The AoC urges ICANN to provide such an unrestricted access. Unfortunly many registries does rate limit the access or does not provide all the required data. Hi Lutz, Yes, the registrars and registries rate limit because they feel required to. It is part of the Whois Marketing Restriction Policy of 2004 -- one of the few bright spots of the type of consensus from the GNSO we have been looking for -- that bars registries and registrars from allowing data mining of the Whois databases for spam, other forms of unwanted advertising, profiling, etc. (Quote from our draft report, chapter 3, is below.) Rate limiting is a tried and true way of preventing data mining, as you know. So here's a followup question: Are we saying, somehow, that the language of the AOC trumps and takes precedence over this Consensus Policy? If so, I think we really need to spell it out for the community and the GNSO. But somehow, I don't think we meant to overturn this marketing restriction policy. As I have mentioned, I think we should be very carefully of recommended specific technical fixes -- but lay out the problem, and the need for a solution, and allow the Community to find it. Chapter 3 Excerpt: "WHOIS Marketing Restriction Policy: This policy, a combination of two distinct GNSO policy recommendations, creates two policy changes to the Registrar Accreditation Agreement: a. Registrars must require third parties "to agree not to use the [Whois] data to allow, enable, or otherwise support any marketing activities." b. Registrars must "agree not to sell or redistribute the [Whois] data" (with some exceptions). http://www.icann.org/en/registrars/wmrp.htm" Best, Kathy -- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/rt4-whois/attachments/20120208/49f117bd/attachment.html From emily at emilytaylor.eu Wed Feb 8 18:41:32 2012 From: emily at emilytaylor.eu (Emily Taylor) Date: Wed, 8 Feb 2012 18:41:32 +0000 Subject: [Rt4-whois] Questions on Recommendation 17 In-Reply-To: <4f32bfa2.c84b440a.0808.23ccSMTPIN_ADDED@mx.google.com> References: <4F2C2E79.7050208@kathykleiman.com> <20120206084815.GA21197@belenus.iks-jena.de> <4F32B770.1070404@kathykleiman.com> <4f32bfa2.c84b440a.0808.23ccSMTPIN_ADDED@mx.google.com> Message-ID: Forgive a personal opinion here, but I would imagine on the "portal" model which I think we're proposing that the underlying data would be subject to whatever rate limits are in place with the registrar of record. You're just going in to the Port 43, grabbing the data, and displaying it in an easy to understand way. Tons of sites already do this. They may place their own rate limits there - to prevent WHOIS abuse, and spammer harvesting type activity. I don't see this recommendation as requiring a wholesale rethink of current policies. On 8 February 2012 18:31, Seth M Reiss wrote: > I am not sure why the AoC could not trump Consensus Policy if that is what > ICANN intended when it signed the AoC. I am not saying this is a desirable > result on this issue ? that the AoC intended to set aside the Whois > Marketing Restricting Policy ? I suspect most of us would want that policy > retained; but the question of whether the AoC can be construed to require > changes to policies, agreements and the like is probably a question > implicating the interaction of contract and corporate law in this > instance. One cannot simply say that the AoC is subservient to all policy > created to date. We do not question that the AoC potentially implicates > changes to the RAA, for example. So why could it not also implicate > changes to a consensus policy? How we get there without running afoul of > the ICANN articles and bylaws is probably a separate question.**** > > ** ** > > Seth **** > > ** ** > > *From:* rt4-whois-bounces at icann.org [mailto:rt4-whois-bounces at icann.org] *On > Behalf Of *Kathy Kleiman > *Sent:* Wednesday, February 08, 2012 7:57 AM > > *To:* Lutz Donnerhacke > *Cc:* rt4-whois at icann.org > *Subject:* Re: [Rt4-whois] Questions on Recommendation 17**** > > ** ** > > Lutz wrote: > > **** > > Yes, that's the reasoning behind the proposal: The AoC urges ICANN to**** > > provide such an unrestricted access. Unfortunly many registries does rate**** > > limit the access or does not provide all the required data.**** > > Hi Lutz, > Yes, the registrars and registries rate limit because they feel required > to. It is part of the Whois Marketing Restriction Policy of 2004 -- one of > the few bright spots of the type of consensus from the GNSO we have been > looking for -- that bars registries and registrars from allowing data > mining of the Whois databases for spam, other forms of unwanted > advertising, profiling, etc. (Quote from our draft report, chapter 3, is > below.) Rate limiting is a tried and true way of preventing data mining, > as you know. > > *So here's a followup question: Are we saying, somehow, that the language > of the AOC trumps and takes precedence over this Consensus Policy? If so, > I think we really need to spell it out for the community and the GNSO. > > *But somehow, I don't think we meant to overturn this marketing > restriction policy. As I have mentioned, I think we should be very > carefully of recommended specific technical fixes -- but lay out the > problem, and the need for a solution, and allow the Community to find it. > > Chapter 3 Excerpt: > "WHOIS Marketing Restriction Policy: This policy, a combination of two > distinct GNSO policy recommendations, creates two policy changes to the > Registrar Accreditation Agreement: > a. Registrars must require third parties ?to agree not to use the [Whois] > data to allow, enable, or otherwise support any marketing activities.? > b. Registrars must ?agree not to sell or redistribute the [Whois] data? > (with some exceptions). http://www.icann.org/en/registrars/wmrp.htm*" > > Best, > Kathy > * > > **** > > -- **** > > ** ** > > ** ** > > > _______________________________________________ > Rt4-whois mailing list > 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 *www.etlaw.co.uk* Emily Taylor Consultancy Limited is a company registered in England and Wales No. 7630471. VAT No. 114487713. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/rt4-whois/attachments/20120208/491fe8cf/attachment.html From denise.michel at icann.org Thu Feb 9 18:10:51 2012 From: denise.michel at icann.org (Denise Michel) Date: Thu, 9 Feb 2012 10:10:51 -0800 Subject: [Rt4-whois] Draft Report Recommendations Message-ID: Dear Team Members, I've had a cross-functional Staff team review the draft report recommendations. We have a number of items for which clarification is needed, and have identified some implementation challenges that require more consideration. At this point it would be valuable if a few Staff could have an informal conference call with the Team or, if you prefer, a sub-set of the Team (perhaps members who held the pen on recommendations?), and discuss the recommendations. This would enable Staff to have a clear understanding of the Team's intent, and give the Team insight into the potential implementation challenges with which we're grappling. If this is amendable, I'll have Alice follow-up on call details. It would be most helpful if we could schedule this next week. Regards, Denise Denise Michel ICANN Advisor to the President & CEO denise.michel at icann.org +1.408.429.3072 mobile +1.310.578.8632 direct -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/rt4-whois/attachments/20120209/8213babf/attachment.html From kathy at kathykleiman.com Fri Feb 10 15:25:29 2012 From: kathy at kathykleiman.com (Kathy Kleiman) Date: Fri, 10 Feb 2012 10:25:29 -0500 Subject: [Rt4-whois] FW: Updated GNSO Council meeting draft agenda 16 February 2012 at 15:00. In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4F3536E9.8020502@kathykleiman.com> Hi All, FYI that the issue of the Thick Whois, the very issue we are working on as well, is up for discussion in the upcoming GNSO Council meeting on 2/16. Best, Kathy ----------------------------------------------------------- *From:* owner-liaison6c at gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-liaison6c at gnso.icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Glen de Saint G?ry ???????????????????????????????? *Agenda**for GNSO Council Meeting ? 16 February 2012* http://gnso.icann.org/meetings/agenda-council-16feb12-en.htm *Wiki agenda :* https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Agenda+16+February+2012 *** Excerpted...**** _Meeting Time 15:00 UTC _ Coordinated Universal Time: 15:00 UTC 07:00 Los Angeles; 10:00 Washington DC; 15:00 London; 16:00 Paris; 00:00 Tokyo; *_Item 3: 'thick' Whois Final Issue Report (10 minutes)_* As recommended by the IRTP Part B Working Group, the GNSO Council requested ICANN Staff to prepare an Issue Report on the requirement of ?thick? WHOIS for all incumbent gTLDs. The Preliminary Issue Report was published for public comment (see http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-2-21nov11-en.htm). Staff has now submitted the Final Issue Report, which includes the report of comments received and additional updates as a result of the comments made. The GNSO Council will now consider the Final Issue Report and decide whether or not to initiate a PDP. 3.1 Presentation of Final Issue Report (Marika Konings) http://gnso.icann.org/issues/whois/final-report-thick-whois-02feb12-en.pdf Refer to motion: https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Motions+16+February+2012 3.2 Reading of the motion (St?phane Van Gelder) 3.3 Discussion 3.3 Vote -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/rt4-whois/attachments/20120210/c8fd0a6e/attachment.html From bill.smith at paypal-inc.com Fri Feb 10 18:44:18 2012 From: bill.smith at paypal-inc.com (Smith, Bill) Date: Fri, 10 Feb 2012 18:44:18 +0000 Subject: [Rt4-whois] Updated GNSO Council meeting draft agenda 16 February 2012 at 15:00. In-Reply-To: <4F3536E9.8020502@kathykleiman.com> References: <4F3536E9.8020502@kathykleiman.com> Message-ID: My understanding of what may be considered at the Council is a requirement to make all registries thick. The impact of this proposal would be limited (I believe) to .net and .com. While the discussion topic is "thick Whois", it differs from our discussion topic. I believe our recommendation is that a single point of access to all name WHOIS records should exist, regardless of where the data actually resides. An implementation of such a service would traverse the DNS hierarchy until it finds content for the requested entry, or fails to find the entry. The location of the content is independent of the service and could be"radically thin" as I think Lutz has proposed. By "radically thin", I mean that the data would be highly distributed, only residing on individual name servers for individual domains. A "radically thick" service would be one where a single name server held the content for all names. In the case of the DNS, there would likely be 13 copies corresponding to the 13 root servers. My point here is that the GNSO Council issue is one of data location whereas our discussion is one of access and ease of use. If our recommendation speaks to data location, I suggest we change it to make it clear that we do *not* intend for WHOIS data to move. On Feb 10, 2012, at 7:25 AM, Kathy Kleiman wrote: Hi All, FYI that the issue of the Thick Whois, the very issue we are working on as well, is up for discussion in the upcoming GNSO Council meeting on 2/16. Best, Kathy ----------------------------------------------------------- From: owner-liaison6c at gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-liaison6c at gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Glen de Saint G?ry ???????????????????????????????? Agenda for GNSO Council Meeting ? 16 February 2012 http://gnso.icann.org/meetings/agenda-council-16feb12-en.htm Wiki agenda : https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Agenda+16+February+2012 *** Excerpted...**** Meeting Time 15:00 UTC Coordinated Universal Time: 15:00 UTC 07:00 Los Angeles; 10:00 Washington DC; 15:00 London; 16:00 Paris; 00:00 Tokyo; Item 3: 'thick' Whois Final Issue Report (10 minutes) As recommended by the IRTP Part B Working Group, the GNSO Council requested ICANN Staff to prepare an Issue Report on the requirement of ?thick? WHOIS for all incumbent gTLDs. The Preliminary Issue Report was published for public comment (see http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-2-21nov11-en.htm). Staff has now submitted the Final Issue Report, which includes the report of comments received and additional updates as a result of the comments made. The GNSO Council will now consider the Final Issue Report and decide whether or not to initiate a PDP. 3.1 Presentation of Final Issue Report (Marika Konings) http://gnso.icann.org/issues/whois/final-report-thick-whois-02feb12-en.pdf Refer to motion: https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Motions+16+February+2012 3.2 Reading of the motion (St?phane Van Gelder) 3.3 Discussion 3.3 Vote _______________________________________________ Rt4-whois mailing list Rt4-whois at icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/rt4-whois From m.yakushev at corp.mail.ru Fri Feb 10 18:56:46 2012 From: m.yakushev at corp.mail.ru (Mikhail Yakushev) Date: Fri, 10 Feb 2012 18:56:46 +0000 Subject: [Rt4-whois] Updated GNSO Council meeting draft agenda 16 February 2012 at 15:00. In-Reply-To: References: <4F3536E9.8020502@kathykleiman.com> Message-ID: <71B38F372F86D940B9C644A99264FA313ED03C@M2EMBS1.mail.msk> Dear Bill, colleagues - My understanding was exactly the same, that no 're-location' was suggested. If there is a chance of misunderstanding, let's clarify. Rgds, Michael -----Original Message----- From: rt4-whois-bounces at icann.org [mailto:rt4-whois-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Smith, Bill Sent: Friday, February 10, 2012 9:44 PM To: Kathy Kleiman Cc: rt4-whois at icann.org Subject: Re: [Rt4-whois] Updated GNSO Council meeting draft agenda 16 February 2012 at 15:00. My understanding of what may be considered at the Council is a requirement to make all registries thick. The impact of this proposal would be limited (I believe) to .net and .com. While the discussion topic is "thick Whois", it differs from our discussion topic. I believe our recommendation is that a single point of access to all name WHOIS records should exist, regardless of where the data actually resides. An implementation of such a service would traverse the DNS hierarchy until it finds content for the requested entry, or fails to find the entry. The location of the content is independent of the service and could be"radically thin" as I think Lutz has proposed. By "radically thin", I mean that the data would be highly distributed, only residing on individual name servers for individual domains. A "radically thick" service would be one where a single name server held the content for all names. In the case of the DNS, there would likely be 13 copies corresponding to the 13 root servers. My point here is that the GNSO Council issue is one of data location whereas our discussion is one of access and ease of use. If our recommendation speaks to data location, I suggest we change it to make it clear that we do *not* intend for WHOIS data to move. On Feb 10, 2012, at 7:25 AM, Kathy Kleiman wrote: Hi All, FYI that the issue of the Thick Whois, the very issue we are working on as well, is up for discussion in the upcoming GNSO Council meeting on 2/16. Best, Kathy ----------------------------------------------------------- From: owner-liaison6c at gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-liaison6c at gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Glen de Saint G?ry ................................................................................................ Agenda for GNSO Council Meeting - 16 February 2012 http://gnso.icann.org/meetings/agenda-council-16feb12-en.htm Wiki agenda : https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Agenda+16+February+2012 *** Excerpted...**** Meeting Time 15:00 UTC Coordinated Universal Time: 15:00 UTC 07:00 Los Angeles; 10:00 Washington DC; 15:00 London; 16:00 Paris; 00:00 Tokyo; Item 3: 'thick' Whois Final Issue Report (10 minutes) As recommended by the IRTP Part B Working Group, the GNSO Council requested ICANN Staff to prepare an Issue Report on the requirement of 'thick' WHOIS for all incumbent gTLDs. The Preliminary Issue Report was published for public comment (see http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-2-21nov11-en.htm). Staff has now submitted the Final Issue Report, which includes the report of comments received and additional updates as a result of the comments made. The GNSO Council will now consider the Final Issue Report and decide whether or not to initiate a PDP. 3.1 Presentation of Final Issue Report (Marika Konings) http://gnso.icann.org/issues/whois/final-report-thick-whois-02feb12-en.pdf Refer to motion: https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Motions+16+February+2012 3.2 Reading of the motion (St?phane Van Gelder) 3.3 Discussion 3.3 Vote _______________________________________________ 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/20120210/e97d958a/attachment.html From alice.jansen at icann.org Sun Feb 12 20:50:20 2012 From: alice.jansen at icann.org (Alice Jansen) Date: Sun, 12 Feb 2012 12:50:20 -0800 Subject: [Rt4-whois] Urgent ACTION REQUIRED - DOODLE POLL: Draft Report Recommendations In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Dear Review Team Members, With reference to Denise's request (see below), please find enclosed a doodle poll link which will enable us to determine the most convenient slot for this WHOIS RT-ICANN Staff call. http://www.doodle.com/pcbnha3isb75p7sd We would like to schedule the call this week. Hence we would be very grateful if you could please complete the doodle poll by Monday, 13 February ? end of your business day. Many thanks in advance. Kind regards Alice -- From: Denise Michel > Reply-To: Denise Michel > Date: Thu, 9 Feb 2012 10:10:51 -0800 To: "rt4-whois at icann.org" > Subject: [Rt4-whois] Draft Report Recommendations Dear Team Members, I've had a cross-functional Staff team review the draft report recommendations. We have a number of items for which clarification is needed, and have identified some implementation challenges that require more consideration. At this point it would be valuable if a few Staff could have an informal conference call with the Team or, if you prefer, a sub-set of the Team (perhaps members who held the pen on recommendations?), and discuss the recommendations. This would enable Staff to have a clear understanding of the Team's intent, and give the Team insight into the potential implementation challenges with which we're grappling. If this is amendable, I'll have Alice follow-up on call details. It would be most helpful if we could schedule this next week. Regards, Denise Denise Michel ICANN Advisor to the President & CEO denise.michel at icann.org +1.408.429.3072 mobile +1.310.578.8632 direct -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/rt4-whois/attachments/20120212/c16b2428/attachment.html From Peter.Nettlefold at dbcde.gov.au Sun Feb 12 22:36:38 2012 From: Peter.Nettlefold at dbcde.gov.au (Nettlefold, Peter) Date: Mon, 13 Feb 2012 09:36:38 +1100 Subject: [Rt4-whois] Updated GNSO Council meeting draft agenda 16 February 2012 at 15:00. [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED] In-Reply-To: <71B38F372F86D940B9C644A99264FA313ED03C@M2EMBS1.mail.msk> References: <4F3536E9.8020502@kathykleiman.com> <71B38F372F86D940B9C644A99264FA313ED03C@M2EMBS1.mail.msk> Message-ID: <636771A7F4383E408C57A0240B5F8D4A33518C9815@EMB01.dept.gov.au> Hi all, This was my understanding also - i.e. purely a mechanism to increase accessibility, independent of where the data is stored. I hope that our current recommendation is clear enough that we get comments on the access issue from this consultation, but either way I'd support further clarification. Cheers, Peter From: rt4-whois-bounces at icann.org [mailto:rt4-whois-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Mikhail Yakushev Sent: Saturday, 11 February 2012 5:57 AM To: Smith, Bill; Kathy Kleiman Cc: rt4-whois at icann.org Subject: Re: [Rt4-whois] Updated GNSO Council meeting draft agenda 16 February 2012 at 15:00. Dear Bill, colleagues - My understanding was exactly the same, that no 're-location' was suggested. If there is a chance of misunderstanding, let's clarify. Rgds, Michael -----Original Message----- From: rt4-whois-bounces at icann.org [mailto:rt4-whois-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Smith, Bill Sent: Friday, February 10, 2012 9:44 PM To: Kathy Kleiman Cc: rt4-whois at icann.org Subject: Re: [Rt4-whois] Updated GNSO Council meeting draft agenda 16 February 2012 at 15:00. My understanding of what may be considered at the Council is a requirement to make all registries thick. The impact of this proposal would be limited (I believe) to .net and .com. While the discussion topic is "thick Whois", it differs from our discussion topic. I believe our recommendation is that a single point of access to all name WHOIS records should exist, regardless of where the data actually resides. An implementation of such a service would traverse the DNS hierarchy until it finds content for the requested entry, or fails to find the entry. The location of the content is independent of the service and could be"radically thin" as I think Lutz has proposed. By "radically thin", I mean that the data would be highly distributed, only residing on individual name servers for individual domains. A "radically thick" service would be one where a single name server held the content for all names. In the case of the DNS, there would likely be 13 copies corresponding to the 13 root servers. My point here is that the GNSO Council issue is one of data location whereas our discussion is one of access and ease of use. If our recommendation speaks to data location, I suggest we change it to make it clear that we do *not* intend for WHOIS data to move. On Feb 10, 2012, at 7:25 AM, Kathy Kleiman wrote: Hi All, FYI that the issue of the Thick Whois, the very issue we are working on as well, is up for discussion in the upcoming GNSO Council meeting on 2/16. Best, Kathy ----------------------------------------------------------- From: owner-liaison6c at gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-liaison6c at gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Glen de Saint G?ry ................................................................................................ Agenda for GNSO Council Meeting - 16 February 2012 http://gnso.icann.org/meetings/agenda-council-16feb12-en.htm Wiki agenda : https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Agenda+16+February+2012 *** Excerpted...**** Meeting Time 15:00 UTC Coordinated Universal Time: 15:00 UTC 07:00 Los Angeles; 10:00 Washington DC; 15:00 London; 16:00 Paris; 00:00 Tokyo; Item 3: 'thick' Whois Final Issue Report (10 minutes) As recommended by the IRTP Part B Working Group, the GNSO Council requested ICANN Staff to prepare an Issue Report on the requirement of 'thick' WHOIS for all incumbent gTLDs. The Preliminary Issue Report was published for public comment (see http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-2-21nov11-en.htm). Staff has now submitted the Final Issue Report, which includes the report of comments received and additional updates as a result of the comments made. The GNSO Council will now consider the Final Issue Report and decide whether or not to initiate a PDP. 3.1 Presentation of Final Issue Report (Marika Konings) http://gnso.icann.org/issues/whois/final-report-thick-whois-02feb12-en.pdf Refer to motion: https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Motions+16+February+2012 3.2 Reading of the motion (St?phane Van Gelder) 3.3 Discussion 3.3 Vote _______________________________________________ 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 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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/20120213/5a8a0678/attachment.html