Thick Whois WG Comments - with some proposed edits

[Amr Elsadr]

Thanks Kathy and Roy. If there are any more comments that members would like included, please post them today. The next Thick Whois WG call is scheduled for tomorrow at 15:00 UTC (right before the NCSG Policy meeting). We will need to submit our response to the WG prior to this call.

It would also be great if NPOC could endorse the response, making it a response by NCSG instead of NCUC. As far as I know, NPOC has not submitted anything so far.

Thanks.

Amr

On Jan 14, 2013, at 7:15 PM, Balleste, Roy wrote:

> Hello!
>  
> Kathy was kind enough to unify all responses so far, I have (with her consent) unified mine with all others.
> Please find attached.
>  
> Roy Balleste, J.S.D.
> Professor of Law
> Law Library Director
> St. Thomas University
> 16401 NW 37th Avenue
> Miami Gardens, FL 33054  USA
> 1-305-623-2341
>  
> From: NCSG-Discuss [mailto:NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU] On Behalf Of Kathy Kleiman
> Sent: Sunday, January 13, 2013 10:05 PM
> To: NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU
> Subject: [NCSG-Discuss] Thick Whois WG Comments - with some proposed edits
>  
> Hi All,
> Great thanks to Amr for the first draft of comments to the Thick Whois PDP Working Group. 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.
> 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.
> 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).
> 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.
> 
> If NPOC shares these concerns, I urge you to sign on – with thanks!
> 
> Best,  Kathy Kleiman (veteran of far too many Whois task forces and review teams...)
> p.s. All of Amr's comments kept, and I added on and filled in some sections...
> <Edits to Thick Whois PDP WG Initial Comments.2.doc>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncuc.org/pipermail/ncuc-discuss/attachments/20130114/36f947ae/attachment-0001.html>