Hey Roger,
I like this
definition, thank you for proposing it. I agree this is
clearer and reads better being consistent with the Think
definition. I support this change.
Thanks,
Marc
Good Afternoon,
On the call and
in my email to the list, I suggested that the definition for
Thick (Registrations) could be made clearer and Dennis asked
that I provide some language suggestions. So being more
consistent with the Thin definition, how about something
like: “domain name for which the sponsoring Registrar
provides a copy of the associated contact information to
the Registry Operator. Registry Operator maintains the
technical information (e.g., name servers, statuses,
creation date) and the sponsoring Registrar associated
with the domain name. Contact information for the domain
name is maintained by the sponsoring Registrar.”
Thanks
Roger
Dear Thick
Whois IRT,
Thank you
for your participation and contribution today.
Attached is
the draft policy document we worked on at the meeting
together: one version with redline and one clean as V2.
We’ll
continue the team edit at our meeting next week to finalize
the document.
Same time
same day same call in info.
Agenda on
IRT wiki:
-
Transition
from thin to thick
-
Draft
Consensus Policy document review - continue from
section 2.9
-
Public
Comment readiness
-
Whois
Conflict Procedure (if time permits)
-
Draft
memo to GNSO Council regarding Privacy (if time permits)
-
Next
steps
—
Kind Regards,
Dennis S. Chang
GDD Services &
Engagement Program Director
+1 213 293 7889
Skype: dennisSchang
www.icann.org
"One World, One Internet"
Dear Thick Whois Policy Implementation
Review Team,
Attached for your review is our initial
draft of the Thick Whois Transition Policy for .COM, .NET
and .JOBS. The draft Policy includes the various elements
discussed in our recent meeting on this topic.
As you review the draft, you will find
bracketed text in four sections: sections 2.9, 2.10, 3.4
and 3.5. These sections are bracketed because they
reference the Registry Registration Data Directory
Services
Consistent Labeling and Display Policy and the
Registration Data Access Protocol gTLD Profile. As you may
be aware, a Request for Reconsideration (RfR) was
submitted by the Registries Stakeholder Group in August
regarding the
Registry
Registration Data Directory Services Consistent Labeling
and Display Policy
that was published on 26 July 2016. The RfR
objects to the inclusion of RDAP in the Consensus Policy.
While the RfR goes through its own process, we thought it
was important to continue progressing the implementation
project with the goal of opening Public Comment in
September and announcing the Transition Policy by 1
February 2017 per our schedule. Therefore, the text is
bracketed as it may need to be revisited pending the
resolution of the RfR and we wanted to directly call the
IRT’s attention to it.
We will review all contents of the
document at our next IRT meeting as a team but please
provide your comments in advance via email if possible.
Thank you for your support!
GDD
Services & Engagement Program Director