Fwd: Input Request: 'thick' Whois SG/C Template

[William Drake]

Hi 

Again NCUC inputs are being actively solicited.  There's a group of Councilors that I believe includes Wendy and Mary who've been closely engaged on this, plus more recently two of our academic members, Roy Balleste and Joana Kulesza, have decided to sink their teeth into this.  There may other members here who'd take an interest as well.  May I suggest that anyone who'd like to help craft a timely and cutting ed response be in touch with the above ASAP?  Again, let's broaden the circle of involvement if we can….

Best,

Bill

Begin forwarded message:

> From: Glen de Saint Géry <Glen at icann.org>
> Date: December 5, 2012 6:36:45 PM GMT+04:00
> To: William Drake <william.drake at uzh.ch>
> Cc: Robin Gross <robin at ipjustice.org>, "gnso-secs at icann.org" <gnso-secs at icann.org>, Marika Konings <marika.konings at icann.org>
> Subject: Input Request: 'thick' Whois SG/C Template 
> 
>  
> Dear Bill,
>  
> The “thick” Whois PDP  Working Group would appreciate the NCUC’s input through the attached  Input Template also in text below: 
> Thank you.
> Kind regards,
>  
> Glen
>  
> Stakeholder Group / Constituency / Input Template ‘thick’ Whois PDP Working Group that the Working Group
>  
> PLEASE SUBMIT YOUR RESPONSE AT THE LATEST BY 9 January 2012 TO THE GNSO SECRETARIAT (gnso.secretariat at gnso.icann.org), which will forward your statement to the Working Group. If additional time is needed by your SG / C to provide your feedback, please inform the secretariat accordingly, including the expected delivery date so that this can be factored in by the WG.
>  
> The GNSO Council has formed a Working Group of interested stakeholders and Stakeholder Group / Constituency representatives, to collaborate broadly with knowledgeable individuals and organizations, in order to consider recommendations in relation to ‘thick’ Whois.
>  
> Part of the working group’s effort will be to incorporate ideas and suggestions gathered from Stakeholder Groups, Constituencies through this template Statement. Please note that the WG is currently in an information-gathering phase. Inserting your response in this form will make it much easier for the Working Group to summarize the responses. This information is helpful to the community in understanding the points of view of various stakeholders. However, you should feel free to add any information you deem important to inform the working group’s deliberations, even if this does not fit into any of the questions listed below.
>  
> For further information, please visit the WG Workspace (https://community.icann.org/display/PDP/Home).
>  
> Process
> -        Please identify the member(s) of your stakeholder group / constituency who is (are) participating in this working group
> 
> -        Please identify the members of your stakeholder group / constituency who participated in developing the perspective(s) set forth below
> 
> -        Please describe the process by which your stakeholder group / constituency arrived at the perspective(s) set forth below
> 
> -        If not indicated otherwise, the WG will consider your submission a SG / C position / contribution. Please note that this should not prevent the submission of individual and/or minority views as part of your submission, as long as these are clearly identified.
> 
>  
> Topics:
>  
> The WG is tasked to provide the GNSO Council with a policy recommendation regarding the use of ‘thick’ Whois by all gTLD Registries, both existing and future. As part of its deliberations, the WG is expected to consider the topics listed below in the context of ‘thick’ Whois. Please provide your stakeholder group’s / constituency’s views, including quantitative and/or empirical information supporting your views, on these topics in relation to whether or not to require ‘thick’ Whois for all gTLDs and/or provide any information that you think will help the WG in its deliberations (for further information on each of these topics, please see the WG Charterhttps://community.icann.org/x/vIg3Ag):
>  
> ·        Response consistency - a ‘thick’ Registry can dictate the labeling and display of Whois information to be sure the information is easy to parse, and all Registrars/clients would have to display it accordingly. This could be considered a benefit but also a potential cost. This might also be a benefit in the context of internationalized registration data as even with the use of different scripts, uniform data collection and display standards could be applied.
> Your view:
>  
> ·        Stability - in the event of a Registrar business or technical failure, it could be beneficial to ICANN and registrants to have the full set of domain registration contact data stored by four organizations (the Registry, the Registry's escrow agent, the Registrar, and the Registrar's escrow agent), which would be the case in a ‘thick’ registry.
> Your view:
>  
> ·        Accessibility - is the provision of Whois information at the registry level under the ‘thick’ Whois model more effective and cost-effective than a ‘thin’ model in protecting consumers and users of Whois data and intellectual property owners?
> Your view:
>  
> ·        Impact on privacy and data protection - how would ‘thick’ Whois affect privacy and data protection, also taking into account the involvement of different jurisdictions with different laws and legislation with regard to data privacy as well as possible cross border transfers of registrant data?
> Your view:
>  
> ·        Cost implications - what are the cost implications of a transition to 'thick' Whois for Registries, Registrars, registrants and other parties for all gTLDs? Conversely, what are the cost implications to Registries, Registrars, registrants and other parties if no transition is mandated?
> Your view:
>  
> ·        Synchronization/migration - what would be the impact on the registry and registrar WHOIS and EPP systems for those Registries currently operating a thin registry, both in the migration phase to ‘thick’ WHOIS as well as ongoing operations?
> Your view:
>  
> ·        Authoritativeness - what are the implications of a ‘thin’ Registry possibly becoming authoritative for registrant Whois data following the transition from a thin-registry model to a thick-registry model. The Working Group should consider the term “authoritative” in both the technical (the repository of the authoritative data) and policy (who has authority over the data) meanings of the word when considering this issue.
> Your view:
>  
> ·        Competition in registry services - what would be the impact on competition in registry services should all Registries be required to provide Whois service using the ‘thick’ Whois model – would there be more, less or no difference with regard to competition in registry services?
> Your view:
>  
> ·        Existing Whois Applications - What, if anything, are the potential impacts on the providers of third-party WHOIS-related applications if ‘thick’ WHOIS is required for all gtLDs?
> Your view:
>  
> ·        Data escrow - ‘thick’ Whois might obviate the need for the registrar escrow program and attendant expenses to ICANN and registrars.
> Your view:
>  
> ·        Registrar Port 43 Whois requirements - ‘thick’ Whois could make the requirement for Registrars to maintain Port 43 Whois access redundant.
> Your view:
>  
> Based on your assessment of these topics, you are also encouraged to indicate whether you think there should or there shouldn’t be a requirement for ‘thick’ Whois by all gTLD Registries.
> Your view:
>  
> If there is any other information you think should be considered by the WG as part of its deliberations, please feel free to include that here.
> Other information:
>  
>  
>  
>  
>  

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncuc.org/pipermail/ncuc-discuss/attachments/20121208/49fcb0f3/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: thick Whois - SG - C Input Template - Final 5 December 2012.doc
Type: application/msword
Size: 46592 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.ncuc.org/pipermail/ncuc-discuss/attachments/20121208/49fcb0f3/attachment.doc>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncuc.org/pipermail/ncuc-discuss/attachments/20121208/49fcb0f3/attachment-0001.html>