<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<meta http-equiv="CONTENT-TYPE" content="text/html;
charset=ISO-8859-1">
<blockquote style="margin-left: 0in; margin-right: 1.18in;
margin-bottom: 0in">
<font face="Arial, sans-serif"><font style="font-size: 10pt"
size="2"><b>Hi
All,</b></font></font></blockquote>
<font face="Arial, sans-serif"><font style="font-size: 10pt"
size="2"><b>G<font size="2">re<font size="2">at thanks to Amr
for the fir<font size="2">st dra<font size="2">ft of
comments to the </font></font></font></font>Thick
Whois PDP W<font size="2">orking Group</font>. As you know,
the question on the table is whether
a “thick Whois model” – one in which all Whois data is held
and
made available by the Registry (e.g., Verisign) and not the
Registrar
– should be the model for all existing and all new gTLDs.</b></font></font>
<blockquote style="margin-left: 0in; margin-right: 1.18in;
margin-bottom: 0in">
<font face="Arial, sans-serif"><font style="font-size: 10pt"
size="2"><b>For
.COM, it's a huge issue. It is a “thin” registry, and 100
million+ Whois records are stored by the registrar pursuant
to local
laws (including local privacy and free speech laws). Whether
we can
convert these 100 million+ records to a single database –
and
whether we want to – are questions for this group.</b></font></font></blockquote>
<blockquote style="margin-left: 0in; margin-right: 1.18in;
margin-bottom: 0in">
<font face="Arial, sans-serif"><font style="font-size: 10pt"
size="2"><b>Further,
the issue of “Whois” data, service and protocol are all up
in the
air. If someday we reach agreement that this very personal
data –
that can expose individuals and organizations to threat for
what they
say and share online (including political, religious and
ethnic
minority views and dissent, including non-commercial
activity) –
should be private, then a single centralized Registry Whois
database
creates a single point of access. That means that should
Registries
be cozy with their local governments, all of this data may
be
relinquished without due process, or even subject to
criminal laws
that are non-standard in the world (e.g., Syria, N.Korea,
China).</b></font></font></blockquote>
<blockquote style="margin-left: 0in; margin-right: 1.18in;
margin-bottom: 0in">
<font face="Arial, sans-serif"><font style="font-size: 10pt"
size="2"><b>The
fact is that registrants know their registrars and it is to
their
registrars that the Whois information is provided. Most
registrants
will think they are protected under those rules. Despite the
fact
that New gTLDs (for this round, at least) require a
centralized Whois
– with the Registry – I remain deeply concerned about the
consolidation of the massive .COM Whois (if it's even legal
– see
below) and the standard set for all future registries and
TLDs –
regardless of their political, social, or religious uses.</b></font></font></blockquote>
<font face="Arial, sans-serif"><font style="font-size: 10pt"
size="2"><b><br>
If
NPOC shares these concerns, I urge you to sign on – with
thanks!<br>
<br>
<font size="2">Best, <font size="2"><font size="2"></font>Kathy
Kleima<font size="2">n (veter<font size="2">an of far t<font
size="2">oo many Whois ta<font size="2">sk forces
and review t<font size="2">eams<font size="2">...)<br>
<font size="2">p.s. All<font size="2"> of
Amr's comments kept<font size="2">, and <font
size="2">I added on and filled in some
sections<font size="2">... </font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></b></font></font>
<title></title>
<meta name="GENERATOR" content="OpenOffice.org 3.3 (Win32)">
<style type="text/css">
<!--
@page { margin: 0.79in }
P { margin-bottom: 0.08in }
-->
</style>
</body>
</html>