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

[Wendy Seltzer]

Thanks, I sent it as an NCUC statement, as that seemed to be our consensus in the time available. 
Next up on my plate, RAA amendments and WHOIS review team report. 

Happy New Year,
--Wendy

Brenden Kuerbis <bkuerbis at internetgovernance.org> wrote:

>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
>>
>>

-- 
wendy at seltzer.com mobile +1.914.374.0613
-- 
wendy at seltzer.com mobile +1.914.374.0613