[[--Translated text (es -> en)--]] Subject: Re: whois From: fatimacambronero@gmail.com Dear, There follows a brief summary accompanying the issue under Comment (Preliminary Report on Thick Whois Issue) and the culture is view favored us stupid. Quizs we can therefore provide a posiciny understand about Quse esthablando. In the elaboration of this summary and worked with me Natalia Enciso Raquel Gatto. To better understand the issue on which we are required opinions (* Preliminary Issue Report on Thick Whois *) is to be linked to a series of related documents. One of them is relative to the Inter-Registrar Transfer * Policy (IRTP) .* * * The objective of IRTP is to provide a simple mechanism for domain name holders to transfer their names from the Register ICANN accredited to another. The GNSO Council estrevisando and considering revisions to this Policy How to travs a series of working groups that have been established to lead these efforts. The Working Group submit it IRTP Part B Final Report in May this year. The Working Group IRTP Part B made two recommendations: Recommendation to the * 8 *: on the clarificacin normalizaciny Whois status messages regarding the Lock Register (Registrar Lock). The * Recommendation to 9, Part 2 *: on a new disposicin to lock and unlock the domain name. In the relationship * 8 * Recommendation to the GNSO Council prior resolvique Recommendation to consider this, ask the ICANN Staff to provide a proposal to ensure a viable approach to technician be developed to comply with this Recommendation to. The staff must have into account the deliberations of the Working Group relationship IRTP Part B this cuestin. The aim of these changes is to clarify quel lock has been ycmo applied this can be changed. After the hotfix the proposed plan, the GNSO study possibility Recommendation to approve the. (We are interested for the purpose of the Whois Recommendation to 8. Includes the Recommendation to corresponding 9 which deals with another topic Comment also subjected to public, and which expires on December 31). In relationship with the * Recommendation to 9, Part 2, * the GNSO Council, consideracin resolviantes of the approval from the Recommendation to Establishing the reason negacin of 7 must be replaced by adicin a new disposicin in a different section of the IRTP on Cundo ycmo domains can be locked or unlocked, for it The GNSO Council requires the ICANN Staff to provide a proposal this new disposicin, taking into account the IRTP Part 2. After the hotfix for the proposal, the GNSO Council study possible Recommendation to approve. * Returning to Issue Preliminary Report on Thick Whois *, this report question is whether the requirement must be applied thick Whois slo-holders all gTLDs in the context of the IRTP, or also consider other positive and negative effects that may occur outside the IRTP which must be taken into account in deciding whether a requirement of thick Whois for all holders of gTLDs is desirable or not. To understand Quse refer to * thick * and * Whois Whois thin *: With * all * thick Whois Whois data relating to registracin are maintained by the Registry. * While with thin Whois * The only information that is maintained by the Registry is current IDENTIFICATION registraciny of the Register of who the sponsor; the rest of the SPECIFIC informaciny relating to the Registrant's kept by the Registrar, Whois making a comprehensive database distributed. We must remember that there exists within ICANN to date, standard or thick or thin demands on Whois, but how to provide the service is managed by each Registry. In thin PRACTICE offers * Whois *, VeriSign for gTLDs such as. Com and. Net. (And. Jobs and. Name). To the largest of the gTLD Whois offered thick (some slo after payment of such service). The Preliminary Report of the GNSO Council reports on the possible Whois thick requirement for all owners of gTLDs before that the Council vote on whether to initiate a process Policy How Development (PDP) on this topic. * A * ALAC asked if he supports the proposal to initiate this process Development Policy How or not. With respect to * Background * to understand the Preliminary Report Issue Thick Whois on in the context of the IRTP Part A and Part B also Working Group, the issue was discussed Whois thick and observtbNL> that: The benefit may be that in a thick registry may develop a safe method for a Registrar to gain access to the registrant's contact information (registrant). Currently there is no safe method for sharing details registrant in a thin registry. In this scenario, the disputes between the registrant and contact administration may be reduced because the registrant is ultimately approving a transfer. Despite thick Whois is required for all owners of gTLDs, may have benefits in the context of transfers, this can be important to explore any other potential positive consequence or negative that may occur outside the IRTP, which must be taken into account. As a result the IRTP working group recommended to apply for a Part B problem reporting requirements for all thick Whois holders gTLDs. For a possible Development Process Policy How not to be slo considered a possible requirement for thick Whois for all owners gTLDs in the context of the IRTP, but also must be considered any other possible positive or negative result can be Whois thick outside, which might be taken into account when deciding if a thick Whois requirement for all owners of gTLDs is desirable or not. This Recommendation to was adopted by the GNSO Council on 22 September 2011. * Concluding remarks * * * We must remember that now for most of the gTLDs are thick provides Whois service. For new gTLDs also esttbNL> scheduled to be offered under thick Whois. VeriSign offers thin Slo Whois for. Com and. Net, and the. Jobs. and. net.There is no standard or ICANN demands on this issue, but that way you PRACTICE estmanejando the agreement and decides MoAb each Registry. One of the characteristics is to have a thick Whois database centrally. While for thin Whois database exists decentralized. Therefore it is necessary to clear up a chain of responsibility does not stop many times that msy time delay may involve the loss of a right for a holder of a name domain. To take a position must be located from the perspective of Internet end-users and not from the perspective of privacy registrant. Since from an end user must ask if more interested in the privacy of your information to register a domain name or the possibility of having to go fifth in the event that a estinvolucrado domain name in ALGN abuse or illicit.There is a interspblico involved in meeting such holders of a name also estcomprometida domain because of a security jurdica system when needed to identify the operator in case of necessary for such purposes. While this was not the original function assigned to Whois, the PRACTICE demostrque was used for the purpose of such investigations. In accordance with the foregoing, we find it convenient initiate the Development Process Policy How proposed. The Development Process Policy How to deberrealizar, debertbNL> investigate whether the data for registration of a domain name contained in Whois is considered sensitive personal data or in the passes in the which are in force contracts with ICANN to determine whether Whois thick requiring such data may or may not be processed, publicaciny transfer. ALAC may contribute to such RESEARCH and discusin from the perspective of end users of Internet. Also the Development Process Policy How should you start determined, whatever the position is taken, thick Whois or Whois thin as demand forward, if that rule applies retroactively to the domain names that are already registered, or applied forward to the new domains to register. Regards, Fatima On December 22, 2011 10:40 Internauta presidency Argentina < presidencia@internauta.org.ar> escribitbNL>
Estimados compañeros: Olivier Crépin-Leblond, Presidente de la ALAC, ha convocado a realizarcomentarios sobre el proyecto de "Declaración de ALAC en el Informe sobre el temapreliminar <https://community.icann.org/x/mAnPAQ>de Whois<https://community.icann.org/x/mAnPAQ>" <https://community.icann.org/x/mAnPAQ>en preparación para el inicio del proceso de ratificación del ALAC.
Tenemos tiempo de enviar comentarios hasta el viernes 23 de diciembre de 2011, 11:59 UTC(se que es poco, pero es lo que hay). Luego de eso se pondrá a votación, previo envío de credenciales a natalia y a mi, por un lapso de cinco días. Saludos cordiales --
*
Sergio Salinas Porto Presidente Internauta Argentina Asociación Argentina de Usuarios de Internet <http://www.internauta.org.ar>-CTA- <http://www.ctamdq.org.ar>FLUI- Federación Latinoamericana de Usuarios de Internet <http://www.fuilain.org>ICANN/LACRALO - ALAC Member facebook:salinasporto twitter:sergiosalinas MSN/MSN YAHOO/Talk: salinasporto... Skype:internautaargentina Mobi:+54 9 223 5 215819
*
*
"Ojalá podamos ser desobedientes, cada vez que recibimos órdenes que humillan nuestra conciencia o violan nuestro sentido común" -Eduardo Galeano-
*
_______________________________________________ lac-discuss-es mailing list lac-discuss-es@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/lac-discuss-es
* Fatima Cambronero * Attorney-Argentina Director of Research * Argentina * AGEIA DENSI http://ar.ageiadensi.org/ * * @ Facambronero * Join the LACRALO / ICANN discussions: * https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/lac-discuss-es _______________________________________________ [[--Original text (es) http://mm.icann.org/transbot_archive/4efb1b7f18.html --]]