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
--
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.