Re: [registrars] .net thick/thin discussion

[Jens Wagner <jwagner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Paul Stahura schrieb:

> I'd like to keep the whois information closer to the registrant, at the
> registrar.  The further away from the registrant the more out of their
> control their own information becomes.
> There is no disincentive to stop the registries from leaking the information
> to anyone.  The thick requirement increases their costs (and system
> complexity) which they pass on to us.
Which TLDs are cheaper? .info/.biz (thick) or .com/.net (thin)?

> Also, if they have this
> responsibility they will put pressure on use to make expensive proactive
> validity checks so that "their" outputted information is pristine.
They don't make more or less pressure than ICANN.

> A thick
> registry makes services such as whois privacy protection more difficult (as
> some of those types of services change, for example, the email address
> periodically and therefore would have to communicate all those changes to
> the registry).  Database synchronization is a problem with the thick model.
DB synchronization by EPP is no problem at all, as long as contact 
information contains all fields needed (which is required by ICANN 
anyway). Providing an own whois service also requires some efforts and 
cost involved for each registrar.
> If the registries want to provide a universal whois service or need it for
> some other purpose they can ask for the information and be white listed.  We
> have too many protocols for moving the whois around, why move it with EPP
> too?  Let's standardize on one: IRIS.
We have EPP around already. Not IRIS.

> Let's require the registrars to output it in a standard format but allow
> optional output as well; the reseller information is only one type of
> optional information that some of us choose to output.
This could be a good EPP extension as well.

> I agree with Larry Erlich and also with Bruce's proposal, I'm OK with the
> per-registrar model (the registrar chooses).  If the complexity increase is
> problematic, then just make it thin.
No. Thin makes lots of trouble with the new transfer policy. What 
happens e.g. if an accredited registrar is required by a local court to 
shut down his whois (e.g. by a preliminary injunction)? Other registrars 
would not be able to transfer domains away from them?
Thin registries increase the cost for authorities as well. If it comes 
to whois data protection policies, an authority would need to get in 
contact with all registrars involved.
DENIC, the .de registry, makes a simple user authentication by IP 
addresses. These addresses can easily be managed, as they only need to 
be stored in a single entity. This has been working quite well up until now!
Key-Systems would definitely be in favour of a Thick-Registry solution.

Best regards,

Jens Wagner
CTO Key-Systems GmbH

Key-Systems GmbH
Prager Ring 4-12
66482 Zweibrücken
Tel.: +49 (0) 6332 - 79 18 50
Fax.: +49 (0) 6332 - 79 18 51
Email: support@xxxxxxxxxxxx

www.key-systems.net
www.domaindiscount24.com
www.RRPproxy.net
www.Key-Fashion.de


> Paul
> Has anyone considered another alternative: depositing the whois at a common
> third party across all ICANN-contracted TLDs? Not the registries and not the
> registrars?
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-registrars@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> [mailto:owner-registrars@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Marcus Faure
> Sent: Monday, July 26, 2004 12:06 AM
> To: Larry Erlich
> Cc: Eric Brunner-Williams in Portland Maine; Bruce Tonkin;
> registrars@xxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: [registrars] .net thick/thin discussion
>
>
> Hello,
>
> even with a thin model, the first point of contact is the registry, e.g. you
> have to go to the Internic whois first before you know which other whois
> to query. Therefore the registry must be monitored closely, but IMHO doing
> your
> own whois does not help here. Sitefinder is a keyword for this discussion.
>
> As long as we do not have standardized whois output, a thin model is more 
> difficult to deal with. I also think that the per-registrar thin model that
> Bruce proposed will cause this extra work, and honestly I do not believe
> that
> the average user understands it.
>
> A registration service provider can be handled with an optional maintainer 
> field in the whois. We have one on the CORE whois that defaults to the
> member
> number, but can also contain a URL.
>
> Yours,
> Marcus
>