Wasn't quite done with that message. The AoC seems quite clear that there is a requirement on ICANN to "implement measures", any measures that satisfy the requirement. On Feb 6, 2012, at 6:11 PM, "Smith, Bill" <bill.smith@paypal-inc.com> wrote:
I'm with Seth. The AoC seems clear
On Feb 6, 2012, at 11:13 AM, "Seth M Reiss" <seth.reiss@lex-ip.com> wrote:
Let's let the AoC speaks for itself.
"ICANN additionally commits to enforcing its existing policy relating to WHOIS, subject to applicable laws. Such existing policy requires that ICANN implement measures to maintain timely, unrestricted and public access to accurate and complete WHOIS information, including registrant, technical, billing, and administrative contact information."
Doesn't say that ICANN should play the operation role and it doesn't say that ICANN should not. ICANN is required to implement measures to effect an adequate result. I do recall discussing a portal, not sure if that was in terms of ICANN operating the portal or ICANN contracting a third party to, or maybe discussing both.
Seth
-----Original Message----- From: rt4-whois-bounces@icann.org [mailto:rt4-whois-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Kathy Kleiman Sent: Monday, February 06, 2012 5:20 AM To: Lutz Donnerhacke Cc: rt4-whois@icann.org Subject: Re: [Rt4-whois] Questions on Recommendation 17
Hi Lutz, Thank you for the detailed answers below. I am still working through them and urge others to review them closely as well. I would very much like to see the "all-whois" website you have been running since 1996 -- would you be willing to share the link?
There does seem to be a difference in how we view the AoC. I never saw as **requiring ** ICANN to have an operational role in running websites, and I don't remember such discussions in our meetings (did I sleep through something?) I do remember discussing that ICANN -- with Whois data as with so many other areas -- is responsible fo creating and overseeing policies that implement the wording and goals of the AoC.
I tend to have a sense that policy-making bodies are not great operational bodies, and know there has been great push-back against ICANN in other areas (e.g. the DNS-Cert discussion of 2010).
I will send back more detailed comments shortly. Thank you for this discussion online and, hopefully, in CR as well. And thanks for the link to your website! Best, Kathy
:
On Fri, Feb 03, 2012 at 01:59:05PM -0500, Kathy Kleiman wrote:
I understand it, we are recommending a "dedicated, multilingual website" to provide thick Whois data (for thin gTLD registries, in one variation, and all gTLD registries in the other):
No, we are recommending a "dedicated, multilingual website" to provide a "centralized access to all whois data regardless of the underlying data structure".
1. What is the underlying data structure of this website? Is all the information going to be gathered into and run out of a California database run and owned by ICANN? No. The website traveresed the data structure down the chain of whois servers (starting at whois.iana.org). It does not store nor copy the whois data, besides some short time caching.
It's similar to DNS: A recursive resolver does not copy and stores all the DNS records worldwide, but is able to obtain the necessary data on the fly.
2. Alternatively, might it be a website run by ICANN offering links to the registries and registrars who hold the full Whois data? No. The results should be present directly on this particular website in order to fulfill the requirements of the AoC literaly:
maintain timely, unrestricted and public access to accurate and complete WHOIS information, including registrant, technical, billing, and administrative contact information.
In order to overcome the problems, shown by user experiance report, the website needs to be multilingual not only in terms of the user interface but also in the presentation of the gathered data.
Of course, the website needs to show the sources and the way how the information was obtained, where it is really stored and why. That's the minimal requirement from (my) understanding of (European) data protection laws.
3. Do you think this would become the place in which all people search for all gTLD whois data? Yes, that's the intention of the proposal.
If so, could there be a scalability problem if all people (law enforcement, domain name purchasers, etc) go to one website for all Whois searches? Is there some liability to ICANN should such a site go down? Yes, that's the reasoning behind the proposal: The AoC urges ICANN to provide such an unrestricted access. Unfortunly many registries does rate limit the access or does not provide all the required data.
ICANN - as the operator of the proposed website - has the power to enforce it's own policies by using it's own contracts with the parties in question.
This way the proposal collapses the differences between real world and AoC at a single point within the organisation which is able to solve the problem.
4. Are we advocating a particular policy/technical solution or is the implementation open to discussion in the GNSO and other policy groups within ICANN? We - as a group - are limited to the such a proposal and might add some personal reasoning (like this).
Personally I do run such an "all-whois" website since 1996 and do have some ideas how it should be implemented and which operational policy should be enforced. But that's outside of our scope.
--
_______________________________________________ Rt4-whois mailing list Rt4-whois@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/rt4-whois
_______________________________________________ Rt4-whois mailing list Rt4-whois@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/rt4-whois