Thanks, Amr. FYI: It is the NCSG Policy Committee, which decides to endorse statements on behalf of NCSG. It would be great if the NCSG- PC could agree to endorse this statement before the deadline (or suggest any changes to it). Thanks again! Robin On Jan 14, 2013, at 9:24 AM, Amr Elsadr wrote: > Thanks Kathy and Roy. If there are any more comments that members > would like included, please post them today. The next Thick Whois > WG call is scheduled for tomorrow at 15:00 UTC (right before the > NCSG Policy meeting). We will need to submit our response to the WG > prior to this call. > > It would also be great if NPOC could endorse the response, making > it a response by NCSG instead of NCUC. As far as I know, NPOC has > not submitted anything so far. > > Thanks. > > Amr > > On Jan 14, 2013, at 7:15 PM, Balleste, Roy wrote: > >> Hello! >> >> Kathy was kind enough to unify all responses so far, I have (with >> her consent) unified mine with all others. >> Please find attached. >> >> Roy Balleste, J.S.D. >> Professor of Law >> Law Library Director >> St. Thomas University >> 16401 NW 37th Avenue >> Miami Gardens, FL 33054 USA >> 1-305-623-2341 >> >> From: NCSG-Discuss [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On >> Behalf Of Kathy Kleiman >> Sent: Sunday, January 13, 2013 10:05 PM >> To: [log in to unmask] >> Subject: [NCSG-Discuss] Thick Whois WG Comments - with some >> proposed edits >> >> Hi All, >> Great thanks to Amr for the first draft of comments to the Thick >> Whois PDP Working Group. As you know, the question on the table is >> whether a “thick Whois model” – one in which all Whois data is >> held and made available by the Registry (e.g., Verisign) and not >> the Registrar – should be the model for all existing and all new >> gTLDs. >> For .COM, it's a huge issue. It is a “thin” registry, and 100 >> million+ Whois records are stored by the registrar pursuant to >> local laws (including local privacy and free speech laws). Whether >> we can convert these 100 million+ records to a single database – >> and whether we want to – are questions for this group. >> Further, the issue of “Whois” data, service and protocol are all >> up in the air. If someday we reach agreement that this very >> personal data – that can expose individuals and organizations to >> threat for what they say and share online (including political, >> religious and ethnic minority views and dissent, including non- >> commercial activity) – should be private, then a single >> centralized Registry Whois database creates a single point of >> access. That means that should Registries be cozy with their local >> governments, all of this data may be relinquished without due >> process, or even subject to criminal laws that are non-standard in >> the world (e.g., Syria, N.Korea, China). >> The fact is that registrants know their registrars and it is to >> their registrars that the Whois information is provided. Most >> registrants will think they are protected under those rules. >> Despite the fact that New gTLDs (for this round, at least) require >> a centralized Whois – with the Registry – I remain deeply >> concerned about the consolidation of the massive .COM Whois (if >> it's even legal – see below) and the standard set for all future >> registries and TLDs – regardless of their political, social, or >> religious uses. >> >> If NPOC shares these concerns, I urge you to sign on – with thanks! >> >> Best, Kathy Kleiman (veteran of far too many Whois task forces >> and review teams...) >> p.s. All of Amr's comments kept, and I added on and filled in some >> sections... >> <Edits to Thick Whois PDP WG Initial Comments.2.doc> > IP JUSTICE Robin Gross, Executive Director 1192 Haight Street, San Francisco, CA 94117 USA p: +1-415-553-6261 f: +1-415-462-6451 w: http://www.ipjustice.org e: [log in to unmask]