Re: [registrars] .net thick/thin discussion
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. 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.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. 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?
|