Hi,

I was just on the WG call.
I think that as long as we indicate something is on the way, we have a few days slack if needed.

I indicated that I thought it would be available by the end of the week.

avri

On 8 Jan 2013, at 09:54, Balleste, Roy wrote:

> Just an FYI that our deadline is tomorrow unless an extension is requested.
>  
> Roy
>  
>  
> From: NCSG-Discuss [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Amr Elsadr
> Sent: Monday, January 07, 2013 3:54 PM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: [NCSG-Discuss] Fwd: [gnso-thickwhoispdp-wg] BC Input on Thick Whois Questionnaire
>  
> The BC's response to the ThickWhoisPDP WG's questions.
>  
> Thanks.
>  
> Amr
>  
> Begin forwarded message:
> 
> 
> From: Glen de Saint Géry <[log in to unmask]>
> Subject: [gnso-thickwhoispdp-wg] RE: BC Input on Thick Whois Questionnaire
> Date: January 3, 2013 12:18:22 AM GMT+02:00
> To: Elisa Cooper <[log in to unmask]>, "[log in to unmask]" <[log in to unmask]>
> 
> 
> Dear Elisa,
>  
> Thank you very much for the Business Constituency’s input on Thick Whois. Your submission will be forwarded to the Working Group.
> Kind regards,
>  
> Glen
>  
> Glen de Saint Géry
> GNSO Secretariat
> [log in to unmask]
> http://gnso.icann.org
>  
> De : Elisa Cooper  
> Envoyé : mercredi 2 janvier 2013 23:06
> À : [log in to unmask]
> Cc  
> Objet : BC Input on Thick Whois Questionnaire
>  
> Please find below a submission by the Business Constituency.
>  
> Best,
> Elisa
>  
> Elisa Cooper
> Director of Product Marketing
> MarkMonitor
>  
> 208 389-5779 PH
>  
> Stakeholder Group / Constituency / Input Template
> ‘thick’ Whois PDP Working Group
>  
> PLEASE SUBMIT YOUR RESPONSE AT THE LATEST BY 9 January 2012 TO THE GNSO SECRETARIAT ([log in to unmask]), which will forward your statement to the Working Group. If additional time is needed by your SG / C to provide your feedback, please inform the secretariat accordingly, including the expected delivery date so that this can be factored in by the WG.
>  
> The GNSO Council has formed a Working Group of interested stakeholders and Stakeholder Group / Constituency representatives, to collaborate broadly with knowledgeable individuals and organizations, in order to consider recommendations in relation to ‘thick’ Whois.
>  
> Part of the working group’s effort will be to incorporate ideas and suggestions gathered from Stakeholder Groups, Constituencies through this template Statement. Please note that the WG is currently in an information-gathering phase. Inserting your response in this form will make it much easier for the Working Group to summarize the responses. This information is helpful to the community in understanding the points of view of various stakeholders. However, you should feel free to add any information you deem important to inform the working group’s deliberations, even if this does not fit into any of the questions listed below.
>  
> For further information, please visit the WG Workspace (https://community.icann.org/display/PDP/Home).
>  
> Process
> -        Please identify the member(s) of your stakeholder group / constituency who is (are) participating in this working group
> o   Elisa Cooper
> o   Susan Kawaguchi
> -        Please identify the members of your stakeholder group / constituency who participated in developing the perspective(s) set forth below
> o   Elisa Cooper acted a rapporteur for these comments.
> -        Please describe the process by which your stakeholder group / constituency arrived at the perspective(s) set forth below
> o   Initial comments were drafted by Elisa Cooper and then sent to the entire Business Constituency for comment and input. Several Business Constituency members stated their support for comments as written.
> -        If not indicated otherwise, the WG will consider your submission a SG / C position / contribution. Please note that this should not prevent the submission of individual and/or minority views as part of your submission, as long as these are clearly identified.
>  
> Topics:
>  
> The WG is tasked to provide the GNSO Council with a policy recommendation regarding the use of ‘thick’ Whois by all gTLD Registries, both existing and future. As part of its deliberations, the WG is expected to consider the topics listed below in the context of ‘thick’ Whois. Please provide your stakeholder group’s / constituency’s views, including quantitative and/or empirical information supporting your views, on these topics in relation to whether or not to require ‘thick’ Whois for all gTLDs and/or provide any information that you think will help the WG in its deliberations (for further information on each of these topics, please see the WG Charter https://community.icann.org/x/vIg3Ag):
>  
> ·        Response consistency - a ‘thick’ Registry can dictate the labeling and display of Whois information to be sure the information is easy to parse, and all Registrars/clients would have to display it accordingly. This could be considered a benefit but also a potential cost. This might also be a benefit in the context of internationalized registration data as even with the use of different scripts, uniform data collection and display standards could be applied.
> Your view:
> The Business Constituency believes that Whois records should be formatted in a standardized, uniform manner.
>  
> ·        Stability - in the event of a Registrar business or technical failure, it could be beneficial to ICANN and registrants to have the full set of domain registration contact data stored by four organizations (the Registry, the Registry's escrow agent, the Registrar, and the Registrar's escrow agent), which would be the case in a ‘thick’ registry.
> Your view:
> Yes – the Business Constituency agrees that it could be beneficial to have a full set of domain registration data stored by four organizations (the Registry, the Registry's escrow agent, the Registrar, and the Registrar's escrow agent).
>  
> ·        Accessibility - is the provision of Whois information at the registry level under the ‘thick’ Whois model more effective and cost-effective than a ‘thin’ model in protecting consumers and users of Whois data and intellectual property owners?
> Your view:
> In today’s current environment, registrars often do not provide complete information via port 43 – and so users are forced to access Whois records only from the registrar’s website. In other instances registrars limit access to Whois based on query volumes. Thick Whois offered by the registry would eliminate these issues for .Com and .Net, where the vast majority of gTLDs are currently registered.
>  
> ·        Impact on privacy and data protection - how would ‘thick’ Whois affect privacy and data protection, also taking into account the involvement of different jurisdictions with different laws and legislation with regard to data privacy as well as possible cross border transfers of registrant data?
> Your view:
> The Business Constituency recognizes that in some cases there may be jurisdictional privacy issues, but recommends that those issues are handled on an exception basis via RSEP.
>  
> ·        Cost implications - what are the cost implications of a transition to 'thick' Whois for Registries, Registrars, registrants and other parties for all gTLDs? Conversely, what are the cost implications to Registries, Registrars, registrants and other parties if no transition is mandated?
> Your view:
> The Business Constituency supports unrestricted and public access to accurate and complete Thick Whois information for all gTLD domain names. Without access to complete Whois records, businesses are unable to remediate instances of infringement, abuse or fraud. The costs associated with these activities can be significant not only to rights owners, but also to victimized Internet users.
>  
> ·        Synchronization/migration - what would be the impact on the registry and registrar WHOIS and EPP systems for those Registries currently operating a thin registry, both in the migration phase to ‘thick’ WHOIS as well as ongoing operations?
> Your view:
> The Business Constituency understands that there will likely be costs incurred on the migration to Thick Whois but reemphasizes the need for unrestricted and public access of this data.
>  
> ·        Authoritativeness - what are the implications of a ‘thin’ Registry possibly becoming authoritative for registrant Whois data following the transition from a thin-registry model to a thick-registry model. The Working Group should consider the term “authoritative” in both the technical (the repository of the authoritative data) and policy (who has authority over the data) meanings of the word when considering this issue.
> Your view:
> The Business Constituency believes that when a registry transitions to Thick Whois that it should become authoritative both from a technical and policy perspective.
>  
> ·        Competition in registry services - what would be the impact on competition in registry services should all Registries be required to provide Whois service using the ‘thick’ Whois model – would there be more, less or no difference with regard to competition in registry services?
> Your view:
> As all new gTLDs registries will be required to support Thick Whois, it seems more equitable that ALL existing registries also be required to provide Thick Whois.
>  
> ·        Existing Whois Applications - What, if anything, are the potential impacts on the providers of third-party WHOIS-related applications if ‘thick’ WHOIS is required for all gTLDs?
> Your view:
> The Business Constituency believes that access to Thick Whois should improve the services provided by third-party applications.
>  
> ·        Data escrow - ‘thick’ Whois might obviate the need for the registrar escrow program and attendant expenses to ICANN and registrars.
> A stated above, the Business Constituency believes that it could be beneficial to have a full set of domain registration data stored by four organizations (the Registry, the Registry's escrow agent, the Registrar, and the Registrar's escrow agent).
>  
> Your view:
> ·        Registrar Port 43 Whois requirements - ‘thick’ Whois could make the requirement for Registrars to maintain Port 43 Whois access redundant.
> Your view:
> Registrars should continue to provide Whois access via their respective websites as registrants are familiar  with their registrars and may not be aware of or able to locate the registry’s website.
>  
> Based on your assessment of these topics, you are also encouraged to indicate whether you think there should or there shouldn’t be a requirement for ‘thick’ Whois by all gTLD Registries.
> Your view:
> The Business Constituency feels strongly that all gTLD registries support Thick Whois.
>  
> If there is any other information you think should be considered by the WG as part of its deliberations, please feel free to include that here.
> Other information:
>  
>  
>  
>  
>