[Rt4-whois] Updated GNSO Council meeting draft agenda 16 February 2012 at 15:00. [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED]

[Nettlefold, Peter]

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> [mailto:owner-liaison6c at gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Glen de Saint Géry ................................................................................................ 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<http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/fixedtime.html?msg=GNSO+Council+meeting&iso=20120216T15&ah=2>

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,<http://gnso.icann.org/issues/whois/final-report-thick-whois-02feb12-en.pdf> 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<http://gnso.icann.org/issues/whois/final-report-thick-whois-02feb12-en.pdf> and decide whether or not to initiate a PDP.



3.1   Presentation of Final Issue Report<http://gnso.icann.org/issues/whois/final-report-thick-whois-02feb12-en.pdf> (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 (Stéphane Van Gelder)

3.3   Discussion

3.3   Vote





_______________________________________________

Rt4-whois mailing list

Rt4-whois at icann.org<mailto:Rt4-whois at icann.org<mailto:Rt4-whois at icann.org%3cmailto:Rt4-whois at icann.org>>

https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/rt4-whois





_______________________________________________

Rt4-whois mailing list

Rt4-whois at icann.org<mailto: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