[lac-discuss-en] whois

Fri Dec 23 18:19:00 UTC 2011

[[--Translated text (es -> en)--]]

 Subject: Re: whois 
 From: fatimacambronero at gmail.com

 Dear, 

 There follows a brief summary accompanying the issue under 
 Comment (Preliminary Report on Thick Whois Issue) and the culture is 
 view favored us stupid. Quizs we can therefore provide a 
 posiciny understand about Quse esthablando. 
 In the elaboration of this summary and worked with me Natalia Enciso 
 Raquel Gatto. 

 To better understand the issue on which we are required 
 opinions (* Preliminary 
 Issue Report on Thick Whois *) is to be linked to a series of 
 related documents. 

 One of them is relative to the Inter-Registrar Transfer * Policy (IRTP) .* 

 * 
 * 

 The objective of IRTP is to provide a simple mechanism for 
 domain name holders to transfer their names from the Register 
 ICANN accredited to another.

 The GNSO Council estrevisando and considering revisions to this 
 Policy How to travs a series of working groups that have been 
 established to lead these efforts. 

 The Working Group submit it IRTP Part B Final Report in May this 
 year. 

 The Working Group IRTP Part B made two recommendations: 

 Recommendation to the * 8 *: on the clarificacin normalizaciny 
 Whois status messages regarding the Lock Register (Registrar Lock). 

 The * Recommendation to 9, Part 2 *: on a new disposicin 
 to lock and unlock the domain name. 

 In the relationship * 8 * Recommendation to the GNSO Council prior resolvique 
 Recommendation to consider this, ask the ICANN Staff to provide 
 a proposal to ensure a viable approach to technician 
 be developed to comply with this Recommendation to. The staff must have 
 into account the deliberations of the Working Group relationship IRTP Part B 
 this cuestin.

 The aim of these changes is to clarify quel lock has been 
 ycmo applied this can be changed. 

 After the hotfix the proposed plan, the GNSO study possibility 
 Recommendation to approve the. 

 (We are interested for the purpose of the Whois Recommendation to 8. Includes the 
 Recommendation to corresponding 9 which deals with another topic 
 Comment also subjected to public, and which expires on December 31). 

 In relationship with the * Recommendation to 9, Part 2, * the GNSO Council, 
 consideracin resolviantes of the approval from the Recommendation to 
 Establishing the reason negacin of 7 must be replaced by 
 adicin a new disposicin in a different section of the IRTP on 
 Cundo ycmo domains can be locked or unlocked, for it 
 The GNSO Council requires the ICANN Staff to provide a proposal 
 this new disposicin, taking into account the IRTP Part 2. After the 
 hotfix for the proposal, the GNSO Council study possible 
 Recommendation to approve. 

 * Returning to Issue Preliminary Report on Thick Whois *, this report 
 question is whether the requirement must be applied thick Whois 
 slo-holders all gTLDs in the context of the IRTP, or also 
 consider other positive and negative effects that may occur outside the 
 IRTP which must be taken into account in deciding whether a requirement of thick 
 Whois for all holders of gTLDs is desirable or not. 

 To understand Quse refer to * thick * and * Whois Whois thin *: 

 With * all * thick Whois Whois data relating to 
 registracin are maintained by the Registry. * While with thin 
 Whois * The only information that is maintained by the Registry is 
 current 
 IDENTIFICATION registraciny of the Register of who the sponsor; 
 the rest of the SPECIFIC informaciny relating to the Registrant&#39;s 
 kept by the Registrar, Whois making a comprehensive database 
 distributed. 

 We must remember that there exists within ICANN to date, standard 
 or thick or thin demands on Whois, but how to provide 
 the service is managed by each Registry. In thin PRACTICE offers * 
 Whois *, VeriSign for gTLDs such as. Com and. Net. (And. Jobs and. Name). To 
 the largest of the gTLD Whois offered thick (some slo after 
 payment of such service). 

 The Preliminary Report of the GNSO Council reports on the possible 
 Whois thick requirement for all owners of gTLDs before 
 that the Council vote on whether to initiate a process 
 Policy How Development (PDP) on this topic. 

 * A * ALAC asked if he supports the proposal to initiate this process 
 Development Policy How or not. 

 With respect to * Background * to understand the Preliminary Report Issue 
 Thick Whois on in the context of the IRTP Part A and Part B also 
 Working Group, the issue was discussed Whois thick and observtbNL&gt; that: The benefit may be that in a thick registry may 
 develop a safe method for a Registrar to gain access to 
 the registrant&#39;s contact information (registrant). 

 Currently there is no safe method for sharing details 
 registrant in a thin registry. 

 In this scenario, the disputes between the registrant and contact 
 administration may be reduced because the registrant is ultimately 
 approving a transfer. 

 Despite thick Whois is required for all owners of gTLDs, 
 may have benefits in the context of transfers, this can 
 be important to explore any other potential positive consequence 
 or negative that may occur outside the IRTP, which must be taken into 
 account. 

 As a result the IRTP working group recommended to apply for a Part B 
 problem reporting requirements for all thick Whois 
 holders gTLDs. 

 For a possible Development Process Policy How not to be slo 
 considered a possible requirement for thick Whois for all owners 
 gTLDs in the context of the IRTP, but also must be considered 
 any other possible positive or negative result can be 
 Whois thick outside, which might be taken into account when deciding 
 if a thick Whois requirement for all owners of gTLDs is 
 desirable or not. 

 This Recommendation to was adopted by the GNSO Council on 22 September 
 2011. 

 * Concluding remarks 
 * 

 * 
 * 

 We must remember that now for most of the gTLDs are 
 thick provides Whois service. For new gTLDs also esttbNL&gt; scheduled to be offered under thick Whois. VeriSign offers thin Slo 
 Whois for. Com and. Net, and the. Jobs. and. net.There is no standard or 
 ICANN demands on this issue, but that way you 
 PRACTICE estmanejando the agreement and decides MoAb each Registry. 

 One of the characteristics is to have a thick Whois database 
 centrally. While for thin Whois database exists 
 decentralized. Therefore it is necessary to clear up a chain of 
 responsibility does not stop many times that msy time delay 
 may involve the loss of a right for a holder of a name 
 domain. 

 To take a position must be located from the perspective of 
 Internet end-users and not from the perspective of privacy 
 registrant. Since from an end user must ask if 
 more interested in the privacy of your information to register a domain name 
 or the possibility of having to go fifth in the event that a 
 estinvolucrado domain name in ALGN abuse or illicit.There is a 
 interspblico involved in meeting such holders of a name 
 also estcomprometida domain because of a security jurdica 
 system when needed to identify the operator in case of 
 necessary for such purposes. While this was not the original function 
 assigned to Whois, the PRACTICE demostrque was used for the purpose of 
 such investigations. 

 In accordance with the foregoing, we find it convenient 
 initiate the Development Process Policy How proposed. 

 The Development Process Policy How to deberrealizar, debertbNL&gt; investigate whether the data for registration of a domain name contained in 
 Whois is considered sensitive personal data or in the passes in the 
 which are in force contracts with ICANN to determine whether 
 Whois thick requiring such data may or may not be processed, 
 publicaciny transfer. ALAC may contribute to such RESEARCH 
 and discusin from the perspective of end users of Internet. 

 Also the Development Process Policy How should you start 
 determined, whatever the position is taken, thick Whois or 
 Whois thin as demand forward, if that rule applies 
 retroactively to the domain names that are already 
 registered, or applied forward to the new domains to register. 

 Regards, 

 Fatima 

 On December 22, 2011 10:40 Internauta presidency Argentina &lt; 
 presidencia at internauta.org.ar&gt; escribitbNL&gt; 

> Estimados compañeros:
> Olivier Crépin-Leblond, Presidente de la ALAC, ha convocado a
> realizarcomentarios sobre el proyecto de "Declaración de ALAC en el
> Informe sobre el temapreliminar <https://community.icann.org/x/mAnPAQ>de
> Whois<https://community.icann.org/x/mAnPAQ>"
> <https://community.icann.org/x/mAnPAQ>en preparación para el inicio del
> proceso de ratificación del ALAC.
>
> Tenemos tiempo de enviar comentarios hasta el viernes 23 de diciembre de
> 2011, 11:59 UTC(se que es poco, pero es lo que hay). Luego de eso se
> pondrá a votación, previo envío de credenciales a natalia y a mi, por un
> lapso de cinco días.
> Saludos cordiales
> --
>
> *
>
> Sergio Salinas Porto Presidente Internauta Argentina Asociación
> Argentina de Usuarios de Internet <http://www.internauta.org.ar>-CTA-
> <http://www.ctamdq.org.ar>FLUI- Federación Latinoamericana de Usuarios
> de Internet <http://www.fuilain.org>ICANN/LACRALO - ALAC Member
> facebook:salinasporto twitter:sergiosalinas MSN/MSN YAHOO/Talk:
> salinasporto... Skype:internautaargentina Mobi:+54 9 223 5 215819
>
> *
>
> *
>
> "Ojalá podamos ser desobedientes, cada vez que recibimos órdenes que
> humillan nuestra conciencia o violan nuestro sentido común" -Eduardo
> Galeano-
>
> *
>
> _______________________________________________
> lac-discuss-es mailing list
> lac-discuss-es at atlarge-lists.icann.org
> https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/lac-discuss-es
>
> http://www.lacralo.org
>

 * Fatima Cambronero * 
 Attorney-Argentina 
 Director of Research 
 * Argentina * AGEIA DENSI 
 http://ar.ageiadensi.org/ 

 * * @ Facambronero 

 * Join the LACRALO / ICANN discussions: * 
 https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/lac-discuss-es 
 _______________________________________________ 

[[--Original text (es)
http://mm.icann.org/transbot_archive/4efb1b7f18.html
--]]