[WHOIS-WG] Thick Whois

[Michele Neylon :: Blacknight]

Patrick

Thanks for the mention.

The current process for registrars is painful. You cannot simply request that ICANN respect your national laws - you have to wait until you're already up to your neck in litigation :(

I would hope that in light of the Article 29 Working Party's renewed interest in ICANN that any new policy on whois would take local laws into consideration.

Though I've been around long enough to know that I shouldn't hold my breath :)

Regards

Michele

--
Mr Michele Neylon
Blacknight Solutions
Hosting & Colocation, Brand Protection
http://www.blacknight.com/
http://blog.blacknight.com/
http://mneylon.tel/
Intl. +353 (0) 59  9183072
Locall: 1850 929 929
Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090
Fax. +353 (0) 1 4811 763
Twitter: http://twitter.com/mneylon
-------------------------------
Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty
Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,Ireland  Company No.: 370845
________________________________
From: whois-wg-bounces at atlarge-lists.icann.org [whois-wg-bounces at atlarge-lists.icann.org] on behalf of Patrick Vande Walle [patrick at vande-walle.eu]
Sent: 12 January 2013 17:05
To: Whois-WG; At-Large Worldwide
Subject: Re: [WHOIS-WG] Thick Whois

While on the subject, it is worth noting,  as Michele Neylon pointed out on his blog, that the .Cat Registry Whois Now Respects EU Privacy Laws
http://www.internetnews.me/2013/01/10/cat-registry-whois-now-respects-eu-privacy-laws/

Of course, the ICANN process to allow a contracted party to simply obey the law is  than optimal. It could be made less burdensome by simply including a one-liner in agreements stating that the the provisions regarding the WHOIS which are contrary to the local law are void.

Anyway, this once again demonstrates that the current WHOIS system is broken, and that we need a replacement ASAP. The work on WEIRDS/RDAP is well advanced, as are several open source implementations.
It will allow differentiated access. However, it is not up to IETF to draft the policies regarding this. One suggestion the ALAC could make is to start right away with designing the policy side. It will take time. So, the sooner the ICANN community begins, the sooner we will have a working replacement for the WHOIS that will, at the same time, both address the LEAs concerns and repect the fundamental rights to privacy and free speech.

--
Patrick Vande Walle

Twitter: twitter.vande-walle.eu<http://twitter.vande-walle.eu>
Facebook: facebook.vande-walle.eu<http://facebook.vande-walle.eu>
LinkedIn: linkedin.vande-walle.eu<http://linkedin.vande-walle.eu>


On 10/01/13 16:52, Carlton Samuels wrote:
This questionnaire with its answers reiterates the ALAC's WHOIS positions expressed at multiple times and in many places in this one place.

It gets my support.

Add the URLs to previous ALAC WHOIS Statements and its good to go.

-Carlton
Chair, At-Large WHOIS WG

==============================
Carlton A Samuels
Mobile: 876-818-1799
Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround
=============================


On Wed, Jan 9, 2013 at 6:14 PM, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca<mailto:alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca>> wrote:
ALAC input was requested by the ongoing GNSO PDP on mandating a Thick Whois for all registries. Although previous ALAC statements made it clear that we were strongly in support of Thick Whois, we had not specifically addressed all of the issues being discussed in the WG.

A draft reply can be found at https://community.icann.org/x/kIVZAg.

Comments welcome, but note that the target reply date was today. I have said that ALAC would be responding but that we would be late, but quick action would be appreciated.

A copy is also attached here for your convenience.
<http://linkedin.vande-walle.eu>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/pipermail/whois-wg/attachments/20130112/007ce268/attachment.html