Resending this to BC List (since I was rejected when sending to BC-Private) From: Steve DelBianco <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>>, John Berard <john@crediblecontext.com<mailto:john@crediblecontext.com>> Cc: <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
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>> Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2012 09:03:22 -0500 To: Zahid Jamil <zahid@dndrc.com<mailto:zahid@dndrc.com>>, John Berard <john@crediblecontext.com<mailto:john@crediblecontext.com>> Cc: <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
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> Sender: owner-bc-gnso@icann.org Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2012 16:07:06 To: Steve DelBianco<sdelbianco@netchoice.org> Cc: bc - GNSO list<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>> Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2012 09:03:22 -0500 To: Zahid Jamil <zahid@dndrc.com<mailto:zahid@dndrc.com>>, John Berard <john@crediblecontext.com<mailto:john@crediblecontext.com>> Cc: <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
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; owner-bc-gnso@icann.org; sdelbianco@netchoice.org CC: bc-gnso@icann.org From: 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> Sender: owner-bc-gnso@icann.org Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2012 16:07:06 To: Steve DelBianco<sdelbianco@netchoice.org> Cc: bc - GNSO list<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>> Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2012 09:03:22 -0500 To: Zahid Jamil <zahid@dndrc.com<mailto:zahid@dndrc.com>>, John Berard <john@crediblecontext.com<mailto:john@crediblecontext.com>> Cc: <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
We found no policy basis for thin Whois. My conclusion as an independent expert is that all Whois records should be "thick". Lynn Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T -----Original Message----- From: Marilyn Cade <marilynscade@hotmail.com> Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2012 11:19:43 To: Lynn Goodendorf<lynn@goodsecurityconsulting.com>; Bill Smith<bill.smith@paypal-inc.com>; <owner-bc-gnso@icann.org>; Steve Delbianco<sdelbianco@netchoice.org> Cc: bc - GNSO list<bc-gnso@icann.org> Subject: RE: [bc-gnso] Council call today 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; owner-bc-gnso@icann.org; sdelbianco@netchoice.org CC: bc-gnso@icann.org From: 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> Sender: owner-bc-gnso@icann.org Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2012 16:07:06 To: Steve DelBianco<sdelbianco@netchoice.org> Cc: bc - GNSO list<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>> Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2012 09:03:22 -0500 To: Zahid Jamil <zahid@dndrc.com<mailto:zahid@dndrc.com>>, John Berard <john@crediblecontext.com<mailto:john@crediblecontext.com>> Cc: <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
I'm with Lynn. The biggest issue isn't think or thin, it's accuracy and access - both of which are horrible. (my opinion) On Feb 16, 2012, at 8:27 AM, <lynn@goodsecurityconsulting.com<mailto:lynn@goodsecurityconsulting.com>> <lynn@goodsecurityconsulting.com<mailto:lynn@goodsecurityconsulting.com>> wrote: We found no policy basis for thin Whois. My conclusion as an independent expert is that all Whois records should be "thick". Lynn Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T ________________________________ From: Marilyn Cade <marilynscade@hotmail.com<mailto:marilynscade@hotmail.com>> Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2012 11:19:43 -0500 To: Lynn Goodendorf<lynn@goodsecurityconsulting.com<mailto:lynn@goodsecurityconsulting.com>>; Bill Smith<bill.smith@paypal-inc.com<mailto:bill.smith@paypal-inc.com>>; <owner-bc-gnso@icann.org<mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org>>; Steve Delbianco<sdelbianco@netchoice.org<mailto:sdelbianco@netchoice.org>> Cc: bc - GNSO list<bc-gnso@icann.org<mailto:bc-gnso@icann.org>> Subject: RE: [bc-gnso] Council call today 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>; owner-bc-gnso@icann.org<mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org>; sdelbianco@netchoice.org<mailto:sdelbianco@netchoice.org> CC: bc-gnso@icann.org<mailto:bc-gnso@icann.org> From: 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>> Sender: 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>> Cc: bc - GNSO list<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>> Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2012 09:03:22 -0500 To: Zahid Jamil <zahid@dndrc.com<mailto:zahid@dndrc.com><mailto:zahid@dndrc.com>>, John Berard <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>> 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
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>; owner-bc-gnso@icann.org<mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org>; sdelbianco@netchoice.org<mailto:sdelbianco@netchoice.org> CC: bc-gnso@icann.org<mailto:bc-gnso@icann.org> From: 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>> Sender: 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>> Cc: bc - GNSO list<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>> Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2012 09:03:22 -0500 To: Zahid Jamil <zahid@dndrc.com<mailto:zahid@dndrc.com><mailto:zahid@dndrc.com>>, John Berard <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>> 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
participants (4)
-
lynn＠goodsecurityconsulting.com -
Marilyn Cade -
Smith, Bill -
Steve DelBianco