If that is the direction we go, OK. Just a note that there is really no such thing as "thick gTLD WHOIS data," but rather thick and thin registries. A clearer way to say the same thing might be: ==> To make WHOIS data more accessible for consumers, the review team recommends that ICANN should set up a dedicated, multilingual interface website for .COM and .NET to help users access the complete gTLD WHOIS data. ===> Peter's original: To make WHOIS data more accessible for consumers, the review team recommends that ICANN should set up a dedicated, multilingual interface website to help users access thick gTLD WHOIS data. Kathy :
Oh dear, just when we thought it was safe to go out.
We are out of time for this kind of debate. I am certainly not going to hold up publication of the report on this issue.
We agreed a recommendation limited to thin WHOIS, and I believe that the way to go given these exchanges is the solution Peter suggested last night: we can preface it by a line or two of text saying a number of team members believe that there would be no reason not to expand a neutral, combined look-up to other TLDs in time, but we have consensus for thin WHOIS.
I will put in the agreed recommendation, and I suggest that we put in the explanatory text above.
Kind regards
Emily
On 2 December 2011 18:28, Omar Kaminski <omar@kaminski.adv.br <mailto:omar@kaminski.adv.br>> wrote:
Completely agree with Lynn about the "mistery" (from the common user point of view) that envolves a Whois query (and let's forget the predictive confusion between gTLDs and ccTLDs).
A good way to see the situation in perspective is to put "whois" on Google and check the results: they attend the users needs?
BTW, in Brazil we have a project of law on House of Representatives that imposes the need to show the site owner's data. Consumer trust, I must say. In other hand, how to supervise thousands, millions of sites?
Omar
2011/12/2 <lynn@goodsecurityconsulting.com <mailto:lynn@goodsecurityconsulting.com>>: > Perhaps it is because we have had an intense week trying to wrap this up. > But I thought Lutz had submitted this recommendation some time ago. And on > the last conference call, he clarified that > this was not a centralized database but rather a centralized interface. And > his recommendation referenced the consumer research study which > I also called out and acknowledged the linkage. So it is also a surprise to > me that we are not all in ageement. > > From my perspective, this is not about Thick or Thin Whois data. It is > about alleviatng the difficulties that absolutely everyone encounters in > doing > Whois lookups. For those of us involved in the domain name industry, we are > more familiar with navigating. But I have to say it is cumbersome and > usually requires several steps to find the registrant information. > Lynn > > > -------- Original Message -------- > Subject: Re: [Rt4-whois] No agreement on Lutz's recommendations > [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED] > From: Kathy Kleiman <kathy@kathykleiman.com <mailto:kathy@kathykleiman.com>> > Date: Fri, December 02, 2011 11:39 am > To: rt4-whois@icann.org <mailto:rt4-whois@icann.org> > > Completely disagree guys, and am writing an extensive message. I have to say > that two days after we were due to report out, I am > surprised/concerned/upset to be debating substantive policy matters. > > But the fact is that the idea of Thick WHOIS database for existing thin > registries (and all, there are Four of them, have we ever discussed that > fact?) is **already being debated**. They recognize that there may be > intended and possibly considerable unintended consequences of the process. > Am reviewing their work and will share shortly. > > Suffice to say, I think we have leapt headlong into policy... Kathy > > << Yes - there is not a difference in privacy by implementing a centralized > interface to all the existing Whois pages. All the interface does is > provide a single point of access to the same data versus multiple points of > access (that would still be functional). > > Lynn > >
_______________________________________________ Rt4-whois mailing list Rt4-whois@icann.org <mailto:Rt4-whois@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/rt4-whois
--
__
76 Temple Road, Oxford OX4 2EZ UK t: +44 (0)1865 582 811 . m: +44 (0)7540 049 322 emily@emilytaylor.eu <mailto:emily@emilytaylor.eu>
*www.etlaw.co.uk <http://www.etlaw.co.uk>*
Emily Taylor Consultancy Limited is a company registered in England and Wales No. 730471. VAT No. 114487713.
_______________________________________________ Rt4-whois mailing list Rt4-whois@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/rt4-whois
--