Thank you Amr, for such a long and detailed response... and for taking the time amidst vacation. I/we will study your words below closely. Have a wonderful vacation! Kathy : > Hi Kathy, > > Thanks for your continued interest in the work being done by this WG, > and apologies for the slow response. I am on holiday with my kids at > Disneyland Paris right now, and am not regularly checking my email. > Being one of several NCSG members who actively participated in this > WG, I will try to briefly provide my own personal perception regarding > the "thick" Whois PDP WG's initial report. Roy Balleste, Marie-Laure > Lemineur and Avri Doria could provide more insight as well, which I > would personally appreciate. > > On page 4 of the report, there is a list of 11 topics listed for > consideration by the WG's charter. Sub-teams were created for each > topic, each with their own mailing list and meeting schedule, > independent from the rest of the WG. To my knowledge, NCSG had very > little if any contributions to the sub-teams listed apart from the one > concerned with "Impact on privacy and data protection" in which we > really exerted the majority of our collective effort. However, two > submissions were made by NCSG (one by each of the constituencies) in > January addressing every one of the topics listed for consideration as > each constituency saw fit, and you will find some of those comments > reflected in some of the sub-team findings (although not all). Still…, > the NCSG initial feedback is on-the-record and can be found here > <https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=39421016> for those > who would like to go over them, or any of the other statements > submitted by other constituencies/SGs and ALAC. > > I do not personally agree with the bottom line recommendation of this > report to proceed with a transition of current "thin" registries to > "thick", as well as implement this as a rule for all new gTLDs beyond > the last round of new gTLDs (which will also all be adopting a "thick" > Whois model as per the applicant guidebook). It seemed to me that this > was, however, the obvious expected outcome by most of the WG members > from the outset of the WG's deliberations and am not surprised by the > final outcome. > > I would definitely say though that section 5.5 (starting on page 25) > of the report with the findings of the Impact on Data Protection and > Privacy sub-team appropriately reflected the concerns we, as NCSG > members, expressed (amidst the lack of concern expressed by other > folks of course). I personally see more of a noncommercial influence > on this part of the report than others. I do have to say that while > working on this sub-team, I was pleasantly surprised to find folks > from other SGs/constituencies very agreeable in accepting > noncommercial concerns, and including them in the sub-team findings. > The sub-team coordinator, Don Blumenthal, also did a great job of > moderating the discussions that included a lot of debates. > > I generally found the folks from the Registries to be the most on this > WG to share common concerns with us in NCSG. I also found it > unfortunate that we had so much disagreement on this topic with the > folks from At-Large. I personally see a very little difference between > the interests of users and those of registrants, especially where > Whois and privacy is concerned. It seems that the folks from At-Large > don't agree with me. I think that if we would like to make progress on > this topic in the future, we should probably work on both those fronts. > > This email is no where near as brief as I intended it to be when I > started, but I will close with this; if we do submit a public comment, > we might want to focus less on detailing the opinions we have on > specific policy issues. We've done this several times already during > the course of this WG. I would lean more towards brief overviews on > those, with more elaborations on the principles we hold that explain > our policy positions. Folks from NCSG who attended the WG meeting in > Beijing did a pretty good job of doing that, and I personally > appreciated it. I would appreciate input from others on this though. > > Thanks. > > Amr > > On Jun 23, 2013, at 9:40 PM, Kathy Kleiman <[log in to unmask] > <mailto:[log in to unmask]>> wrote: > >> Dear NCSG Members of the Thick Whois WG, >> Thank you for your time and efforts on this Working Group. As we >> review the initial report, it would help to have your guidance: >> - What do you agree with? >> - What do you disagree with? >> >> Feel free to share what you think your victories were (hooray!) and >> what you think still needs to be done to make this Initial Report - >> and the next steps it urges for GNSO policy - better and tighter. >> >> My and our thanks for all your work in the past, and your work to >> come, on this WG! >> Kathy >> >> >> >> : >>> Begin forwarded message: >>> >>>> *From: *Glen de Saint Géry <[log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]>> >>>> *Subject: **[liaison6c] Public Comment: Thick Whois Initial Report >>>> - GNSO Policy Development Process* >>>> *Date: *June 22, 2013 12:35:13 AM PDT >>>> *To: *liaison6c <[log in to unmask] >>>> <mailto:[log in to unmask]>> >>>> >>>> http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/thick-whois-initial-21jun13-en.htm >>>> >>>> >>>> Thick Whois Initial Report – GNSO Policy Development Process >>>> >>>> Comment / Reply Periods (*) >>>> Comment Open Date: 21 June 2013 >>>> Comment Close Date: 14 July 2013 - 23:59 UTC >>>> Reply Open Date: 15 July 2013 >>>> Reply Close Date: 4 August 2013 - 23:59 UTC >>>> Important Information Links >>>> Public Comment Announcement >>>> <http://www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/announcement-21jun13-en.htm> >>>> To Submit Your Comments (Forum) >>>> <mailto:[log in to unmask]> >>>> View Comments Submitted >>>> <http://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-thick-whois-initial-21jun13/> >>>> Brief Overview >>>> Originating Organization: GNSO >>>> Categories/Tags: >>>> >>>> * Policy Processes >>>> >>>> Purpose (Brief): >>>> >>>> The Generic Names Supporting Organization ("GNSO") Thick Whois >>>> Policy Development Process Working Group tasked with providing the >>>> GNSO Council with a policy recommendation regarding the use of >>>> 'thick' Whois by all gTLD Registries has published itsInitial >>>> Report >>>> <http://gnso.icann.org/en/issues/whois/thick-initial-21jun13-en.pdf>[PDF, >>>> 1.21 MB] for public comment. >>>> >>>> Current Status: >>>> >>>> The Policy Development Process (PDP) Working Group has published >>>> itsInitial Report >>>> <http://gnso.icann.org/en/issues/whois/thick-initial-21jun13-en.pdf>[PDF, >>>> 1.21 MB] and is soliciting community input on the preliminary >>>> recommendations contained in the report. >>>> >>>> Next Steps: >>>> >>>> Following review of the public comments received, the Working Group >>>> will continue its deliberations and finalize its report for >>>> submission to the GNSO Council. >>>> >>>> Staff Contact: >>>> Marika Konings >>>> Email Staff Contact >>>> <mailto:[log in to unmask]> >>>> Detailed Information >>>> Section I: Description, Explanation, and Purpose: >>>> >>>> The Thick Whois PDP WG was tasked to provide the GNSO Council with >>>> 'a policy recommendation regarding the use of thick Whois by all >>>> gTLD registries, both existing and future'. Following its analysis >>>> of the different issues outlined in its Charter, including: >>>> response consistency; stability; access to Whois data; impact on >>>> privacy and data protection; cost implications; synchronization / >>>> migration; authoritativeness; competition in registry services; >>>> existing Whois applications; data escrow, and registrar Port 43 >>>> Whois requirements (see section 5 of the Initial Report), on >>>> balance the Working Group concludes that there are more benefits >>>> than disadvantages to requiring thick Whois for all gTLD >>>> registries. As a result, the Working Group recommends that: >>>> >>>> /The provision of thick Whois services should become a requirement >>>> for all gTLD registries, both existing and future./ >>>> >>>> The WG expects numerous benefits as a result of requiring thick >>>> Whois for all gTLD registries. Nevertheless, the WG recognizes that >>>> a transition of the current thin gTLD registries would affect over >>>> 120 million domain name registrations and as such it should be >>>> carefully prepared and implemented. In section 7.2 of the Initial >>>> Report, the WG outlines a number of implementation considerations. >>>> In section 7.3 of the Initial Report the WG also provides other >>>> observations that emerged from this discussion which while not >>>> directly related to the question of thin or thick did and should >>>> receive due consideration by other bodies. >>>> >>>> The WG would like to encourage all interested parties to submit >>>> their comments and suggestions so these can be considered as the WG >>>> continues its deliberations in view of finalizing its report and >>>> recommendations in the next phase of the policy development process. >>>> >>>> Section II: Background: >>>> >>>> ICANN specifies Whois service requirements for generic top-level >>>> domain (gTLD) registries through the Registry Agreement (RA) and >>>> the Registrar Accreditation Agreement (RAA). Registries and >>>> registrars satisfy their Whois obligations using different service >>>> models. The two common models are often characterized as "thin" and >>>> "thick" Whois registries. This distinction is based on how two >>>> distinct sets of data are managed. One set of data is associated >>>> with the domain name, and a second set of data is associated with >>>> the registrant of the domain name. >>>> >>>> * A thin registry only stores and manages the information >>>> associated with the domain name. This set includes data >>>> sufficient to identify the sponsoring registrar, status of the >>>> registration, creation and expiration dates for each >>>> registration, name server data, the last time the record was >>>> updated in its Whois data store, and the URL for the >>>> registrar's Whois service. >>>> * With thin registries, registrars manage the second set of data >>>> associated with the registrant of the domain and provide it via >>>> their own Whois services, as required by Section 3.3 of the RAA >>>> for those domains they sponsor.COM and NET are examples of thin >>>> registries. >>>> * Thick registries maintain and provide both sets of data (domain >>>> name and registrant) via Whois.INFO and BIZ are examples of >>>> thick registries. >>>> >>>> The GNSO Council requested an Issue Report regarding the use of >>>> thick Whois by all gTLD Registries at its meeting on 22 September >>>> 2011. The Issue Report was expected to 'not only consider a >>>> possible requirement of thick Whois for all incumbent gTLDs in the >>>> context of IRTP, but should also consider any other positive and/or >>>> negative effects that are likely to occur outside of IRTP that >>>> would need to be taken into account when deciding whether a >>>> requirement of thick Whois for all incumbent gTLDs would be >>>> desirable or not'. >>>> >>>> Following the delivery of the Final Issue Report, the GNSO Council >>>> initiated a Policy Development Process at its meeting of 14 March 2012. >>>> >>>> Section III: Document and Resource Links: >>>> >>>> Initial Report on the Thick Whois Policy Development Process >>>> <http://gnso.icann.org/en/issues/whois/thick-initial-21jun13-en.pdf>[PDF, >>>> 1.21 MB] >>>> >>>> Working Group Workspace -https://community.icann.org/x/whgQAg >>>> >>>> Section IV: Additional Information: >>>> N/A >>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >>>> >>>> (*) Comments submitted after the posted Close Date/Time are not >>>> guaranteed to be considered in any final summary, analysis, >>>> reporting, or decision-making that takes place once this period lapses. >>>> >>>> Glen de Saint Géry >>>> GNSO Secretariat >>>> [log in to unmask] >>>> <mailto:[log in to unmask]> >>>> http://gnso.icann.org <http://gnso.icann.org/> >>> >> >