[PC-NCSG] [NCUC Public Comment] Thick and Thin Whois Preliminary issues report -- draft comment

[Brenden Kuerbis]

I feel this statement represents NCUC positions well, and it has my
support. Thanks to Wendy for drafting it.  I hope to see it submitted by
the SG as well.

B
On Dec 30, 2011 2:54 AM, "Wendy Seltzer" <wendy at seltzer.com> wrote:

> This is due today, Dec. 30, to thick-whois-preliminary-report at icann.org
> On whose behalf shall I submit it?  NCSG or NCUC?
> Current draft as circulated included below.
>
> If it's acceptable, I'd like to add a bit more meat to the privacy
> section, "Individual registrants in particular may be concerned that the
> aggregation of data in a thick WHOIS makes it more attractive to data
> miners and harder to confirm compliance with their local privacy laws."
>
> Thanks,
> --Wendy
>
> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: Re: [NCSG-Discuss] [NCUC Public Comment] Thick and Thin Whois
> Preliminary issues report -- draft comment
> Date: Wed, 28 Dec 2011 11:19:37 +0000
> From: Konstantinos Komaitis <k.komaitis at STRATH.AC.UK>
> Reply-To: Konstantinos Komaitis <k.komaitis at STRATH.AC.UK>
> To: NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU
>
> Hi Wendy,
>
> this is a great statement - thanks for taking the time to draft this. I
> fully support it. I would hope that this would become an NCSG statement
> - can I ask whether NPOC would be willing to support it?
>
> Thanks
>
> KK
>
> PS: going back to eating now....
>
> ---statement---
> NCSG offers this comment on the Preliminary Issue Report on 'Thick' Whois.
>
> As an initial matter, we question the impetus for this
> policy-making.  It is not clear that changing the thickness of
> WHOIS responds to the IRTP working groups' concerns about secure
> data exchange in a transfer, as neither the security properties
> nor alternatives are described in any detail.
>
> The items in the Applicant Guidebook, in particular the
> requirement that all new gTLD applicants provide thick WHOIS, do
> not reflect a GNSO or community consensus. It would therefore
> reverse the policy-making process to assert consistency with new
> gTLDs as a rationale for creating a policy that required existing
> registries to change their WHOIS model.  The issue report
> correctly notes that no policy currently exists as to WHOIS
> model. We do not believe this PDP is the time or way to make such
> policy.
>
> Further we question the timing and sequence of this proposed
> PDP. A drafting team is currently developing a survey of WHOIS
> technical requirements, to gauge community needs from the WHOIS
> system. Policy requiring thick WHOIS appears to offer a solution
> without before the problem is defined -- and so risks "solving"
> the wrong problem, while in the process reducing flexibility to
> solve actual problems that the community identifies. We also have
> ongoing WHOIS studies. As the GNSO Council frequently hears about
> the overload on staff resources, and community members themselves
> face numerous competing demands on their time, we believe these
> resources could be better optimized by rejecting this PDP or
> postponing it until the prior WHOIS work gave definite objectives
> that required changes to the WHOIS model such as a thick WHOIS.
>
> If there is any consideration of a PDP on Thick Whois, it should
> include the issue of the legitimacy of the current Applicant
> Guidebook requirement on new gTLD applicants to use the Thick
> Whois model. It is quite clear that this subject is within the
> scope of the GNSO, a scope that should not have been preempted by
> the New gTLD application process.  The Issues report should cover
> this topic before any discussion on the appropriateness of
> extending the model to the incumbent registries.
>
> Within the report itself, we would like to see more consideration
> of alternative models, such as standards that could streamline
> the distributed database of thin WHOIS, or a centralized
> database.  Many of the format and accessibility concerns, for
> example, would appear to be better served by agreement on a
> standardized format for WHOIS data responses than by requirements
> on where the data must be kept. A new policy meant to address
> these concerns should look at their root causes, and explore the
> range of available options, not simply pick thick WHOIS because
> it's common.
>
>
> As this preliminary issue report was completed before the
> adoption of the new PDP process, it does not contain the impact
> analysis recommended there. NCSG has particular interest in the
> impact on privacy rights. Moving all data to the registry could
> facilitate invasion of privacy and decrease the jurisdictional
> control registrants have through their choice of registrar.
>
> For these reasons, NCSG opposes commencement of a PDP and recommends
> constriction, not expansion of the thick WHOIS mandate.
>
> ---/statement---
>
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20111230/3a5137f6/attachment.html>