I agree with Paul on this.
Tim
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-registrars@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:owner-registrars@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Jens Wagner
Sent: Tuesday, July 27, 2004 4:39 AM
To: Paul Stahura
Cc: 'Marcus Faure'; Larry Erlich; Eric Brunner-Williams in Portland Maine;
Bruce Tonkin; registrars@xxxxxxxx; Alexander Siffrin
Subject: 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.
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