Versions Compared

Key

  • This line was added.
  • This line was removed.
  • Formatting was changed.

...

FINAL DRAFT VERSION TO BE VOTED UPON BY THE ALAC

The final draft version to be voted upon by the ALAC will be placed here before the vote is to beginALAC strongly supports the recommendation of the Final Report on the Thick Whois Policy Development Process for all gTLD registries to use the ‘thick’ Whois mode.  It is a position that the ALAC has supported, beginning with its response to the Preliminary Report and reflected in the ALAC Statement on the Preliminary Issue Report on ‘Thick’ Whois expressing ‘extreme disappointment’ that Verisign was not required to use a this Whois model for .com when that ICANN-registry agreement was up for renewal

The reasons for the ALAC support include

  • Enhanced archival and restoration;
  • Back up data if a registrar is experiencing significant technical difficulties or has gone out of business;
  • Greater accessibility of data;
  • The possibility of a registry requiring more consistent labelling and display of Whois information, which may be of particular benefit for internationalised registration data; and
  • Greater accessibility of information for users.

The Final Report also requests input on transition issues, particularly privacy issues.  The ALAC would note that similar privacy issues are addresses by most existing Registries and all registrars including movement of data from one jurisdiction to another.  ICANN has also developed a policy, ICANN’s Procedure for Handling Whois Conflicts with Privacy Law which should assist that process.

FIRST DRAFT SUBMITTED

The ALAC strongly supports the recommendation of the Final Report on the Thick Whois Policy Development Process for all gTLD registries to use the ‘thick’ Whois mode.  It is a position that the ALAC has supported, beginning with its response to the Preliminary Report and reflected in the ALAC Statement on the Preliminary Issue Report on ‘Thick’ Whois expressing ‘extreme disappointment’ that Verisign was not required to use a this Whois model for .com when that ICANN-registry agreement was up for renewal

...