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

Wed Dec 12 23:36:18 CET 2012

Hi

NPOC inputs are also solicited. Marie-laure Lemineur, NPOC's Program
Committee Chair, has joined the “thick” Whois PDP  Working Group. Maybe we
can work towards an NCSG wide input?

Best, Alain

On Sat, Dec 8, 2012 at 1:50 AM, William Drake <william.drake at uzh.ch> wrote:

> 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:*
> ** **
> ** **
> ** **
> ** **
> ** **
>
>
>
>
>

-- 
Alain Berranger, B.Eng, MBA
Member, Board of Directors, CECI,
http://www.ceci.ca<http://www.ceci.ca/en/about-ceci/team/board-of-directors/>
Executive-in-residence, Schulich School of Business, www.schulich.yorku.ca
Treasurer, Global Knowledge Partnership Foundation, www.gkpfoundation.org
NA representative, Chasquinet Foundation, www.chasquinet.org
Chair, NPOC, NCSG, ICANN, http://npoc.org/
O:+1 514 484 7824; M:+1 514 704 7824
Skype: alain.berranger

AVIS DE CONFIDENTIALITÉ
Ce courriel est confidentiel et est à l’usage exclusif du destinataire
ci-dessus. Toute personne qui lit le présent message sans en être le
destinataire, ou l’employé(e) ou la personne responsable de le remettre au
destinataire, est par les présentes avisée qu’il lui est strictement
interdit de le diffuser, de le distribuer, de le modifier ou de le
reproduire, en tout ou en partie . Si le destinataire ne peut être joint ou
si ce document vous a été communiqué par erreur, veuillez nous en informer
sur le champ  et détruire ce courriel et toute copie de celui-ci. Merci de
votre coopération.

CONFIDENTIALITY MESSAGE
This e-mail message is confidential and is intended for the exclusive use
of the addressee. Please note that, should this message be read by anyone
other than the addressee, his or her employee or the person responsible for
forwarding it to the addressee, it is strictly prohibited to disclose,
distribute, modify or reproduce the contents of this message, in whole or
in part. If the addressee cannot be reached or if you have received this
e-mail in error, please notify us immediately and delete this e-mail and
destroy all copies. Thank you for your cooperation.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncuc.org/pipermail/ncuc-discuss/attachments/20121212/e441c3c4/attachment-0001.html>