Re: [Rt4-whois] No agreement on Lutz's recommendations [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED]
+1 Thick vs thin as about where the data is stored (and who controls it) not where it is accessed/displayed. Lutz's proposal addresses a significant issue that was highlighted during our consumer research. While that occurred towards the end of our work, the issue isn't new, we heard from several on the team that following WHOIS breadcrumbs is difficult. Lutz's proposal came out, as I recall, as a result of our discussions in Dakar (and followup discussions). Dismissing it because it is "too late" is in my opinion unwarranted. (We could make the same argument for the proxy and privacy Voluntary Code, but we shouldn't.) In addition, as I think I've stated before, *anyone* that has a desire to offer the service Lutz is proposing can do so. That fact is an inherent part of the Internet, unless we're going to switch to a model of ask for permission as would be the case at the ITU, but I digress. I'll have to read the lengthy discourse on why this is a bad idea later. On Dec 2, 2011, at 9:10 AM, <lynn@goodsecurityconsulting.com<mailto:lynn@goodsecurityconsulting.com>> wrote: 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 -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: [Rt4-whois] No agreement on Lutz's recommendations [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED] From: "Smith, Bill" <bill.smith@paypal-inc.com<mailto:bill.smith@paypal-inc.com>> Date: Fri, December 02, 2011 10:02 am To: "lynn@goodsecurityconsulting.com<mailto:lynn@goodsecurityconsulting.com>" <lynn@goodsecurityconsulting.com<mailto:lynn@goodsecurityconsulting.com>> Cc: Emily Taylor <emily@emilytaylor.eu<mailto:emily@emilytaylor.eu>>, "rt4-whois-bounces@icann.org<mailto:rt4-whois-bounces@icann.org>" <rt4-whois-bounces@icann.org<mailto:rt4-whois-bounces@icann.org>>, Lutz Donnerhacke <lutz@iks-jena.de<mailto:lutz@iks-jena.de>>, "rt4-whois@icann.org<mailto:rt4-whois@icann.org>" <rt4-whois@icann.org<mailto:rt4-whois@icann.org>> I agree with Lynn and Peter on this. I'm having difficulty understanding the privacy implications of better usability, other than more people would use the service but then that's the purpose of improved usability. On Dec 2, 2011, at 4:39 AM, <lynn@goodsecurityconsulting.com<mailto:lynn@goodsecurityconsulting.com>> <lynn@goodsecurityconsulting.com<mailto:lynn@goodsecurityconsulting.com>> wrote:
I would like to get a better understanding of the. Objection or concern about Lutz's recommendation. If an interface is only implemented for .net and .com, it defeats the purpose and does not provide ease of access to all WHOIS registration data. Lynn
Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T
-----Original Message----- From: Emily Taylor <emily@emilytaylor.eu<mailto:emily@emilytaylor.eu>> Sender: rt4-whois-bounces@icann.org<mailto:rt4-whois-bounces@icann.org> Date: Fri, 2 Dec 2011 08:28:15 To: Lutz Donnerhacke<lutz@iks-jena.de<mailto:lutz@iks-jena.de>> Cc: rt4-whois@icann.org<mailto:rt4-whois@icann.org><rt4-whois@icann.org<mailto:rt4-whois@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [Rt4-whois] No agreement on Lutz's recommendations [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED]
Thank you for these constructive ideas. Apologies for my mistake on this one. I would like Kathy's view on the proposed wording before any sign offing this as I am aware it is something on which she has previously raised comments.
Peter I think you meant thin registries didn't you? That would be a more accurate and precise version of what we agreed. This another one where (I think) we are all agreed on a minimum which in my view would represent a real step forward. What there is not consensus on is how far or whether such a look-up could or should be expanded. If is not already clear in the text we should find a way of expressing clearly that our proposal should not necessitate any transfer of databases, escrow or similar. It is simply a single look up point.
Sent from my iPhone
On 2 Dec 2011, at 07:35, Lutz Donnerhacke <lutz@iks-jena.de<mailto:lutz@iks-jena.de>> wrote:
On Fri, Dec 02, 2011 at 03:05:13PM +1100, Nettlefold, Peter wrote:
"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.
Remove 'thick gTLD'. The scope is narrowed later.
This would be a smart web portal, that would assist users to access publicly available WHOIS data. It is not envisaged that this would replicate registry databases in any way, but instead help users by providing a single centralised site through which to search those databases, and to display the WHOIS data in an accessible way.
Ack. (There is no reference zu gTLD.)
The review team has discussed the scope of this portal, and seeks ecommunity views on whether it should only apply to thin gTLD registries, or should instead provide a comprehensive gTLD search service."
In order to be really useful, the system should be able to access any ICANN regulated WHOIS data (which includes ASN and IP). _______________________________________________ Rt4-whois mailing list Rt4-whois@icann.org<mailto:Rt4-whois@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/rt4-whois
_______________________________________________ Rt4-whois mailing list Rt4-whois@icann.org<mailto:Rt4-whois@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/rt4-whois
_______________________________________________ Rt4-whois mailing list Rt4-whois@icann.org<mailto:Rt4-whois@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/rt4-whois
_______________________________________________ Rt4-whois mailing list Rt4-whois@icann.org<mailto:Rt4-whois@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/rt4-whois -- ________________________________ _______________________________________________ Rt4-whois mailing list Rt4-whois@icann.org<mailto:Rt4-whois@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/rt4-whois _______________________________________________ Rt4-whois mailing list Rt4-whois@icann.org<mailto:Rt4-whois@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/rt4-whois
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
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.
Dear colleagues, I think this is the best solution. Rgds, Michael From: rt4-whois-bounces@icann.org [mailto:rt4-whois-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Emily Taylor Sent: Friday, December 02, 2011 9:57 PM 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<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 -- [Description: Image removed by sender.] 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.
I agree From: rt4-whois-bounces@icann.org [mailto:rt4-whois-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Emily Taylor Sent: Friday, December 02, 2011 10:57 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<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 -- [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<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.
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
--
Isn't this (copied from the wiki draft) the currently "agreed to" language: 1. To make WHOIS data more accessible for consumers, ICANN should set up a dedicated, multilingual interface website to allow "unrestricted and public access to accurate and complete WHOIS information" by querying the appropriate servers, not copying the database. I see no mention of .com or .net and would object to inserting them at this late stage. On Dec 2, 2011, at 11:22 AM, Kathy Kleiman wrote: 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 -- [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<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<mailto:Rt4-whois@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/rt4-whois -- _______________________________________________ Rt4-whois mailing list Rt4-whois@icann.org<mailto:Rt4-whois@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/rt4-whois
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.
participants (8)
-
Emily Taylor -
Kathy Kleiman -
lynn＠goodsecurityconsulting.com -
Mikhail Yakushev -
Omar Kaminski -
Seth M Reiss -
Smith, Bill -
Susan Kawaguchi