<html><head></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; "><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="border-collapse: separate; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: Arial; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; orphans: 2; text-align: -webkit-auto; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-border-horizontal-spacing: 0px; -webkit-border-vertical-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-decorations-in-effect: none; -webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; font-size: medium; "><span class="Apple-style-span" style="border-collapse: separate; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: Arial; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; orphans: 2; text-align: -webkit-auto; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-border-horizontal-spacing: 0px; -webkit-border-vertical-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-decorations-in-effect: none; -webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; font-size: medium; "><div style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; "><span class="Apple-style-span" style="border-collapse: separate; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: Arial; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; orphans: 2; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-border-horizontal-spacing: 0px; -webkit-border-vertical-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-decorations-in-effect: none; -webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; font-size: medium; "><div style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; "><span class="Apple-style-span" style="border-collapse: separate; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: Arial; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; orphans: 2; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-border-horizontal-spacing: 0px; -webkit-border-vertical-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-decorations-in-effect: none; -webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; font-size: medium; "><div style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; "><span class="Apple-style-span" style="border-collapse: separate; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: Arial; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; orphans: 2; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-border-horizontal-spacing: 0px; -webkit-border-vertical-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-decorations-in-effect: none; -webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; font-size: medium; "><div style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; ">Hi</div></span></div></span></div></span></div></span></span></div><div><br class="webkit-block-placeholder"></div><div>Good statement, thanks for taking the time Wendy. Fourth para needs a concluding sentence. I like the welcoming of alternative models, which the ALAC draft comment specifically challenges. <a href="https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=30345624">https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=30345624</a> Thinking only within the existing boxes has left us with irreconcilable polarities, so maybe a broader assessment could help a bit, or at least provide an opportunity to raise the profile of civil liberties considerations in the mix.</div><div><br></div><div>Bill</div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div><div>On Dec 26, 2011, at 8:24 AM, Avri Doria wrote:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><blockquote type="cite"><div>Hi Wendy,<br><br>Thanks for taking time out of your holiday to do this. I am quite happy with the statement.<br><br>The only thing I would consider adding is another bit at the end of paragraph 3 on the process error made in the decision to require Thick Whois in the case of New gTLDs without a GNSO PDP effort. <br><br>Something like:<br><br>-<br>If there is any consideration of a PDP on Thick Whois, it should include the issue of the legitimacy of the current Applicant Guidebook requirement on new gTLD applicants to use the Thick Whois model. It is quite clear that this subject is within the scope of the GNSO, a scope that should not have been preempted by the New gTLD application process. The Issues report should cover this topic before any discussion on the appropriateness of extending the model to the incumbent registries. <br>-<br><br>I am in favor of this as a NCUC comment with or without the additional sentences.<br><br><br>Thanks again,<br><br>avri<br><br><br><br>On 26 Dec 2011, at 02:51, Wendy Seltzer wrote:<br><br><blockquote type="cite">I know the timing is tight, but here are some draft comments on the<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">Preliminary Issue Report on 'Thick' Whois<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><<a href="http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-2-21nov11-en.htm">http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-2-21nov11-en.htm</a>><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">(comment period closes Dec. 30)<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">That preliminary report recommends that we start a PDP to make "thick"<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">WHOIS a consensus policy binding on incumbent registries (Verisign,<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">which has a thin WHOIS, with distributed registrar records, for .com and<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">.net). I think that's a bad idea.<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">----draft comment----<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">[] offers this comment on the Preliminary Issue Report on 'Thick' Whois.<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">As an initial matter, we question the impetus for this policy-making.<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">It is not clear that changing the thickness of WHOIS responds to the<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">IRTP working groups' concerns about secure data exchange in a transfer,<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">as neither the security properties nor alternatives are described in any<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">detail.<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">The items in the Applicant Guidebook, in particular the requirement that<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">all new gTLD applicants provide thick WHOIS, do not reflect a GNSO or<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">community consensus. It would therefore reverse the policy-making<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">process to assert consistency with new gTLDs as a rationale for creating<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">a policy that required existing registries to change their WHOIS model.<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">The issue report correctly notes that no policy currently exists as to<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">WHOIS model. We do not believe this PDP is the time or way to make such<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">policy.<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">Further we question the timing and sequence of this proposed PDP. A<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">drafting team is currently developing a survey of WHOIS technical<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">requirements, to gauge community needs from the WHOIS system. Policy<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">requiring thick WHOIS appears to offer a solution without before the<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">problem is defined -- and so risks "solving" the wrong problem, while in<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">the process reducing flexibility to solve actual problems that the<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">community identifies. We also have ongoing WHOIS studies. As the GNSO<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">Council frequently hears about the overload on staff resources, and<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">community members themselves face numerous competing demands on their<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">time, we believe these resources could be better optimized by rejecting<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">this PDP or postponing it until the prior WHOIS work gave definite<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">objectives that required changes to the WHOIS model such as a thick WHOIS.<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">Within the report itself, we would like to see more consideration of<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">alternative models, such as standards that could streamline the<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">distributed database of thin WHOIS, or a centralized database. Many of<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">the format and accessibility concerns, for example, would appear to be<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">better served by agreement on a standardized format for WHOIS data<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">responses than by requirements on where the data must be kept. A new<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">policy meant to address these concerns should look at their root causes,<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">not<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">As this preliminary issue report was completed before the adoption of<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">the new PDP process, it does not contain the impact analysis recommended<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">there. NCSG has particular interest in the impact on privacy rights.<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">Moving all data to the registry could facilitate invasion of privacy and<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">decrease the jurisdictional control registrants have through their<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">choice of registrar.<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">----end draft comment----<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">Thanks to Avri for helpful suggestions starting the thread. I propose<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">this as an NCSG or NCUC comment, depending on response.<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">Thanks,<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">--Wendy<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote></div></blockquote></div><br></body></html>