NCSG-DISCUSS Archives

NCSG-Discuss

NCSG-DISCUSS@LISTSERV.SYR.EDU

Options: Use Forum View

Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Condense Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Mime-Version:
1.0 (Apple Message framework v1251.1)
Content-Type:
text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Date:
Sat, 24 Dec 2011 15:00:18 -0500
Reply-To:
Avri Doria <[log in to unmask]>
Subject:
Content-Transfer-Encoding:
quoted-printable
Message-ID:
Sender:
NCSG-Discuss <[log in to unmask]>
From:
Avri Doria <[log in to unmask]>
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (13 lines)
Hi,

With the comment period ending on 30 December, I was wondering whether the NCUC-PC was working on a comment.  
In my view, the main topics that need to be considered in the issues report are:

- Should all registries, incumbent and new, be subject to the same rules on Whois service?
- Are Thick and Thin the only two models that should be looked at when discussing the Whois service?  
- What are the requirements for the Whois service that thick or thin are the solutions for?
- Given that all registries are subject to ICANN-consensus rules on Whois and given that the requirements for Thick Whois by new gTLDs was not established through PDP based ICANN-consensus, is the AGB rule that all new gTLDs be required to support Thick Whois a legitimate policy requirement?


avri

ATOM RSS1 RSS2