Re: [ga] Thick whois?

[Jeffrey Williams <jwkckid2@xxxxxxxxx>]

Joop and all,

  My second response here.  The current Thick Whois is now not adaquate to
meet security and
stability mandate of ICANN, but it is far better than the Thin alternative.
 What is sorely needed to
assist individual Domain Name Holders is a more robust Thick Whois so that
those whom host those
Domains or host their own Domains won't be so easily fooled by errant
incoming data and can
better protect themselves accordingly.  I amongst others recognize that
there is a additional
cost for such a more robust Thick Whois, but the safty, privacy, and
especially security of individual
Domain name holders will be far better served and for armed if such a
structure is mandated and
thereby internationally regulated so that cross border domain name issues
and usage abuses
are lessened as a result.  After all to be more protective of users access
is far and away more
economically sound for the long haul and perhaps the mid term than the
contrary.

Kindest regards,
Jeffrey A. Williams
"Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is very
often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt

"If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B; liability
depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by
P: i.e., whether B is less than PL."
United States v. Carroll Towing  (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947]
===============================================================
Updated 4/18/12
CISO
Phone: 214-245-2647


On Thu, Apr 19, 2012 at 5:11 PM, Joop Teernstra <terastra@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>wrote:

>
>
> The question whether a thick whois is appropriate for the current
> structure of empowered private Registries is a very important one that
> should indeed be debated here.
>
> This is an issue that affects ALL domain name owners.
> This is the oldest forum where people who have always felt that they are
> representative of the typical individual domain registrant can still speak
> out.
>
> My humble position is that before any changes are ordained to services
> like Whois, Registries should be recast as not-for-profit democratically
> governed cooperatives of Domain Name holders.
> Ideally.
>
> So for the moment my answer to the thick-whois question is No.
> Who agrees?
>
> Joop
>
> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Randel H Hanes" <
> hanes@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> To: <ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Sent: Friday, April 20, 2012 2:22 AM
> Subject: [ga] Still waiting to see...
>
>
>
>> I added myself to the DNSO mailing list before ICANN became what it is
>> today.
>> Moved over to GNSO in hope to keep my finger on the pulse of changing
>> policies and view projects to watch out for issues that could up for
>> debate.
>>
>> I signed on understanding the list's rule that can be read near the
>> bottom of the FAQ page
>> http://gnso.icann.org/faq.html
>>
>> If you look over the GNSO Project Status List
>> (http://gnso.icann.org/**meetings/pending-projects-**list.pdf<http://gnso.icann.org/meetings/pending-projects-list.pdf>),
>> is there
>> something that seems to give you pause..
>> like the matter of Protection of the Red Cross/IOC names for the New
>> gTLD program. Should there be a special preference for one organization
>> over another?
>>
>> Or how about something in that was covered over the Agenda for the GNSO
>> Council Meeting 12 April 2012
>> (http://gnso.icann.org/**meetings/agenda-council-**12apr12-en.htm<http://gnso.icann.org/meetings/agenda-council-12apr12-en.htm>).
>> Is there
>> any commit for a proposal to modify the WHOIS in the debate of Thick vs.
>> Thin Whois for New gTLDs?
>>
>> Come on folks... lets see some relevant chatter.
>>
>>
>>
>