Thanks Emily From: rt4-whois-bounces@icann.org [mailto:rt4-whois-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Emily Taylor Sent: Friday, December 02, 2011 8:57 AM To: Omar Kaminski Cc: rt4-whois Subject: Re: [Rt4-whois] No agreement on Lutz's recommendations [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED] 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> 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>:
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> Date: Fri, December 02, 2011 11:39 am To: 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 https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/rt4-whois -- <http://www.etlaw.co.uk/images/stories/etlaw/etclogo250x60.gif> 76 Temple Road, Oxford OX4 2EZ UK t: +44 (0)1865 582 811 . m: +44 (0)7540 049 322 emily@emilytaylor.eu www.etlaw.co.uk Emily Taylor Consultancy Limited is a company registered in England and Wales No. 730471. VAT No. 114487713.