Marilyn, This is a great start. There are likely a few more aspects that would need to be covered - like registration info changes without a registrant change - but this is going in the right direction. Jim -----Original Message----- From: Marilyn Cade [marilynscade@hotmail.com<mailto:marilynscade@hotmail.com>] Sent: Thursday, February 16, 2012 01:21 PM Eastern Standard Time To: John Berard; Bill Smith Cc: Lynn Goodendorf; owner-bc-gnso@icann.org; Steve Delbianco; bc - GNSO list Subject: RE: [bc-gnso] Council call today A centralized WHOIS database, operated by ICANN, and outsourced, could benefit business [and govt's and NGOs] tremendously. NO names go live until verified payment received -- no future kiting and tasting opportunities supported by registries, registrars, and resellers Standards for WHOIS Single cost for entry to registrant and single cost to anyone accessing ISO certified This is not a discussion on who gets access, or what is displayed -- but a discussion on benefits of standards, and a single validated database. In my view, high benefit to business users. And, registrants like companies, can more easily look for cybersquatted names. ________________________________ From: john@crediblecontext.com To: bill.smith@paypal-inc.com; marilynscade@hotmail.com CC: lynn@goodsecurityconsulting.com; owner-bc-gnso@icann.org; sdelbianco@netchoice.org; bc-gnso@icann.org Subject: RE: [bc-gnso] Council call today Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2012 09:37:25 -0700 Bill, Here is the pertinent line from the final report: From a technical perspective, a thick Whois model provides a central repository for a given registry. Historically, centralized databases are operated under a single administrator that sets conventions and standards for submission and display, archival/restoration and security have proven easier to manage. Not so much a call but a possibility. The report notes that some comments, like that coming from the IPC, did call for a centralized database. Berard -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: [bc-gnso] Council call today From: "Smith, Bill" <bill.smith@paypal-inc.com<mailto:bill.smith@paypal-inc.com>> Date: Thu, February 16, 2012 8:30 am To: Marilyn Cade <marilynscade@hotmail.com<mailto:marilynscade@hotmail.com>> Cc: Lynn Goodendorf <lynn@goodsecurityconsulting.com<mailto:lynn@goodsecurityconsulting.com>>, "<owner-bc-gnso@icann.org<mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org>>" <owner-bc-gnso@icann.org<mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org>>, Steve Delbianco <sdelbianco@netchoice.org<mailto:sdelbianco@netchoice.org>>, bc - GNSO list <bc-gnso@icann.org<mailto:bc-gnso@icann.org>> To be clear, I am not questioning the BC position. Rather, I was pointing out that the characterization of the WHOIS RT recommendation as a call for a centralized database was perhaps incorrect. On Feb 16, 2012, at 8:19 AM, Marilyn Cade wrote: I understand that the WG may have made a distinction. However, the BC has supported thick WHOIS. It is helpful to have the clarification from the independent experts on that subject. Marilyn Cade
Subject: Re: [bc-gnso] Council call today To: bill.smith@paypal-inc.com<mailto:bill.smith@paypal-inc.com><mailto:bill.smith@paypal-inc.com>; owner-bc-gnso@icann.org<mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org><mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org>; sdelbianco@netchoice.org<mailto:sdelbianco@netchoice.org><mailto:sdelbianco@netchoice.org> CC: bc-gnso@icann.org<mailto:bc-gnso@icann.org><mailto:bc-gnso@icann.org> From: lynn@goodsecurityconsulting.com<mailto:lynn@goodsecurityconsulting.com><mailto:lynn@goodsecurityconsulting.com> Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2012 16:15:31 +0000
Yes Bill- our RT made a deliberate distinction between a centralized web interface rather than a database. We believe this approach is feasible and would provide consumers with a single URL for whois lookups. Lynn
Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T
-----Original Message----- From: "Smith, Bill" <bill.smith@paypal-inc.com<mailto:bill.smith@paypal-inc.com>><mailto:bill.smith@paypal-inc.com>> Sender: owner-bc-gnso@icann.org<mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org><mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org> Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2012 16:07:06 To: Steve DelBianco<sdelbianco@netchoice.org<mailto:sdelbianco@netchoice.org>><mailto:sdelbianco@netchoice.org>> Cc: bc - GNSO list<bc-gnso@icann.org<mailto:bc-gnso@icann.org>><mailto:bc-gnso@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [bc-gnso] Council call today
A clarification.
I don't think the WHOIS RT recommendations include "a call for centralized database of WHOIS data". If it does, it's an error. What we are recommending is that there be a centralized point of *access* to WHOIS data.
The data could reside anywhere.
If our report says otherwise, or projects that perception, please let us know.
On Feb 16, 2012, at 6:30 AM, Steve DelBianco wrote:
Resending this to BC List (since I was rejected when sending to BC-Private)
From: Steve DelBianco <sdelbianco@actonline.org<mailto:sdelbianco@actonline.org>><mailto:sdelbianco@actonline.org><mailto:sdelbianco@actonline.org>> Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2012 09:03:22 -0500 To: Zahid Jamil <zahid@dndrc.com<mailto:zahid@dndrc.com>><mailto:zahid@dndrc.com><mailto:zahid@dndrc.com>>, John Berard <john@crediblecontext.com<mailto:john@crediblecontext.com>><mailto:john@crediblecontext.com><mailto:john@crediblecontext.com>> Cc: <bc-private@icann.org<mailto:bc-private@icann.org>><mailto:bc-private@icann.org><mailto:bc-private@icann.org>> Subject: Council call today
John & Zahid — just a follow-up on last week's member call, where we discussed the motions you have today in Council.
Motion to start a PDP on Thick WHOIS:
This one is complicated.
BC wants accessible and accurate WHOIS, and thick WHOIS is part of the solution. But another part of the solution is amending the RAA to require verification of WHOIS data. And the WHOIS review Team draft report includes many recommendations on WHOIS, including a call for centralized database of WHOIS data.
We also understand that registrars are not willing to share their WHOIS data with a thick .com whois or a a central database — unless ICANN adopts a new "consensus policy" requiring data sharing. And we know that it takes a PDP to create such a new consensus policy.
However, we don't want to do anything that removes pressure on the current process to amend the RAA. And we are concerned that launching a new PDP could create an excuse for the RAA negotiators to avoid making any changes on WHOIS.
John Berard was going to ask Stephane about deferring his PDP motion until after the RAA amendments are done.
If John's outreach effort wasn't successful, I think the BC members would want you to ask for a deferral of the PDP motion, for reasons stated above.
Motion for implementation of IRTP Recommendation 8: Support. The BC had several members on the IRTP-B working group, and we support implementation of the working group's recommendation.
Motion to send letter to Board asking to allow single-letter IDN gTLDs: Support. The BC supports the expansion of gTLDs to IDN users, and wants TLDs to be able to use a single-character IDN if that's most appropriate for the linguistic community being served.
Hope that's helpful. Let me know if there's any other info I can provide for today's call.
-- Steve DelBianco Vice chair for policy coordination