AT-LARGE GATEWAY

At-Large Website

ALAC

RALOs

At-Large Regional Policy Engagement Program (ARPEP)

At-Large Governance

At-Large Reports

Policy Comments & Advice

Working Groups

ICANN Meetings

At-Large Summit (ATLAS III)

At-Large Review Implementation Plan Development

ALAC and RALO Elections, Selections, and Appointments

At-Large Priority Activities - 2021

Versions Compared

Old Version 5

changes.mady.by.user Matt Ashtiani

Saved on

compared with

New Version Current

changes.mady.by.user Matt Ashtiani

Saved on

Key

  • This line was added.
  • This line was removed.
  • Formatting was changed.
Comment: Migrated to Confluence 5.3
Comment Close
Date		Statement
Name 

Status

Assignee(s) and
RALO(s)

Call for
Comments		Call for
Comments
Close 		Vote
Announcement 		Vote OpenVote
Reminder		Vote CloseDate of SubmissionStaff Contact and EmailStatement Number
14.07.2013Thick Whois Initial Report – GNSO Policy Development ProcessDraftingAdopted 12Y, 0N, 0AAlan Greenberg (NARALO) TBC TBC TBC TBC TBC TBC26.06.201304.07.2013 n/a18.07.2013
(ALAC Meeting in Durban) 		n/a18.07.201321.07.2013 TBCMarika Konings
policy-staff@icann.org  TBC		AL-ALAC-ST-0713-04-00-EN
Comment / Reply Periods (*)
Comment Open Date: 
21 June 2013
Comment Close Date: 
21
14 July 2013 - 23:59 UTC
Reply Open Date: 
22
15 July 2013
Reply Close Date: 
12
4 August 2013 - 23:59 UTC
Important Information Links
Public Comment Announcement
To Submit Your Comments (Forum)
View Comments Submitted
Brief Overview
Originating Organization: 

...

GNSO
Categories/Tags: 

...

  • Policy Processes
Purpose (Brief): 

...

The Generic Names Supporting Organization ("GNSO") Thick Whois Policy Development Process Working Group tasked with providing the GNSO Council with a policy recommendation regarding the use of 'thick' Whois by allgTLD Registries has published its Initial Report [PDF, 1.21 MB] for public comment.

Current Status: 

...

The Policy Development Process (PDP) Working Group has published its Initial Report [PDF, 1.21 MB] and is soliciting community input on the preliminary recommendations contained in the report.

Next Steps: 

...

Following review of the public comments received,

...

the Working Group will continue its deliberations and finalize its report for submission to the GNSO Council.

Staff Contact: 

...

Marika Konings
Email Staff Contact
Detailed Information
Section I: Description, Explanation, and Purpose: 

ICANN is posting today for public comment the proposed renewal of the 2008 .ORG Registry Agreement. The proposal is a result of discussions between ICANN and Public Interest Registry, and will be considered byICANN after public comment. Per recent amendment #5, the current agreement will expire on 31 August 2013.

The current registry agreement for .ORG provides for presumptive renewal so long as certain requirements are met. The agreement also provides that upon renewal, changes may be made to render the terms similar to other comparable agreements. The proposed renewal agreement includes modified provisions to make the agreement in line with other comparable agreements, as well as additional provisions that are currently proposed in the final draft of the New gTLD Registry Agreement posted for public comment.

Included in the proposed renewal agreement are the following provisions:

  • Threats to Security and Stability: A new provision has been added to allow the registry operator to temporarily prevent the registration of one or more names in the TLD in order to respond to an imminent threat to the security and/or stability of the TLD or the Internet.
  • Use of Registrars Accredited Under the 2013 RAA: A new provision is included to require the registry operator to amend its Registry-Registry Agreement to require registrars to use the 2013 RAAif registrars representing 67% of the registrations in the TLD sign the 2013 RAA. If the remaining registrars do not sign the amended Registry-Registrar Agreement requiring registrars to become a party to the final 2013 RAA within a certain time period, then the registrars' access to the TLD registry system will be suspended (that is, those registrars will not be permitted to add new registrations). This requirement is dependent upon the registry operators of identified comparable gTLDs also submitting similar requests to amend their Registry-Registrar Agreements.
  • Emergency Transition provisions: A new provision proposed in the New gTLD Registry Agreement is included in the renewal agreement to provide for emergency transition in the event the registry is unable to sustain certain critical registry functions for a period of time.
  • Code of Conduct: The registry operator will be required to comply with the Registry Code of Conduct as proposed in the New gTLD Registry Agreement.
  • Resolution of Disputes: The dispute resolution procedures were updated similar to the New gTLDRegistry Agreement to require the parties to attempt to resolve the dispute through mediation before they may initiate arbitration.
  • WHOIS: The WHOIS output is required to be compatible with ICANN's common interface for WHOIS (InterNIC), and if requested by ICANN, the registry operator must provide a link on its website to a webpage designed by ICANN containing WHOIS policy and education materials.
  • Cross-ownership Restrictions: The renewal agreement lifts restrictions on cross-ownership of registry operators and registrars or registrar resellers.

Posted for public comment are both clean and "redline" versions of the agreement and modified appendices as follows:

Contractual Compliance Review: As part of the renewal process, ICANN conducted a review of recent .ORG Registry Agreement performance. The compliance review covered areas including: Timeliness and Content of Monthly Reports; Add Grace Period Limits Policy; Bulk Zone File Requirements; and Payment of Required Fees.

The Public Interest Registry was found to be in substantial compliance with their contractual requirements. The assessments can be found at: http://www.icann.org/en/resources/compliance/reports/operator-pir-org-03jun13-en.pdf [PDF, 267 KB]

The Thick Whois PDP WG was tasked to provide the GNSO Council with 'a policy recommendation regarding the use of thick Whois by all gTLD registries, both existing and future'. Following its analysis of the different issues outlined in its Charter, including: response consistency; stability; access to Whois data; impact on privacy and data protection; cost implications; synchronization / migration; authoritativeness; competition in registry services; existing Whois applications; data escrow, and registrar Port 43 Whois requirements (see section 5 of the Initial Report), on balance the Working Group concludes that there are more benefits than disadvantages to requiring thick Whois for all gTLD registries. As a result, the Working Group recommends that:

The provision of thick Whois services should become a requirement for all gTLD registries, both existing and future.

The WG expects numerous benefits as a result of requiring thick Whois for all gTLD registries. Nevertheless, theWG recognizes that a transition of the current thin gTLD registries would affect over 120 million domain name registrations and as such it should be carefully prepared and implemented. In section 7.2 of the Initial Report, theWG outlines a number of implementation considerations. In section 7.3 of the Initial Report the WG also provides other observations that emerged from this discussion which while not directly related to the question of thin or thick did and should receive due consideration by other bodies.

The WG would like to encourage all interested parties to submit their comments and suggestions so these can be considered as the WG continues its deliberations in view of finalizing its report and recommendations in the next phase of the policy development process.

Section II: Background: 

ICANN specifies Whois service requirements for generic top-level domain (gTLD) registries through the Registry Agreement (RA) and the Registrar Accreditation Agreement (RAA). Registries and registrars satisfy their Whois obligations using different service models. The two common models are often characterized as "thin" and "thick" Whois registries. This distinction is based on how two distinct sets of data are managed. One set of data is associated with the domain name, and a second set of data is associated with the registrant of the domain name.

  • A thin registry only stores and manages the information associated with the domain name. This set includes data sufficient to identify the sponsoring registrar, status of the registration, creation and expiration dates for each registration, name server data, the last time the record was updated in its Whois data store, and the URL for the registrar's Whois service.
  • With thin registries, registrars manage the second set of data associated with the registrant of the domain and provide it via their own Whois services, as required by Section 3.3 of the RAA for those domains they sponsor. COM and NET are examples of thin registries.
  • Thick registries maintain and provide both sets of data (domain name and registrant) via Whois. INFO and BIZ are examples of thick registries.

The GNSO Council requested an Issue Report regarding the use of thick Whois by all gTLD Registries at its meeting on 22 September 2011. The Issue Report was expected to 'not only consider a possible requirement of thick Whois for all incumbent gTLDs in the context of IRTP, but should also consider any other positive and/or negative effects that are likely to occur outside of IRTP that would need to be taken into account when deciding whether a requirement of thick Whois for all incumbent gTLDs would be desirable or not'.

Following the delivery of the Final Issue Report, the GNSO Council initiated a Policy Development Process at its meeting of 14 March 2012.

Section III: Document and Resource Links: 

Initial Report on the Thick Whois Policy Development Process [PDF, 1.21 MB]

Working Group Workspace - https://community.icann.org/x/whgQAg

Section IV: Additional Information: 
N/A
Section II: Background: 

ICANN and Public Interest Registry entered into Registry Agreements on 8 December 2008 for the operation of the .ORG top level domain. The current .ORG agreement may be viewed at:http://www.icann.org/en/about/agreements/registries/org

Section III: Document and Resource Links: 

Current .ORG Registry Agreement and Appendices

Section IV: Additional Information: 

...

(*) Comments submitted after the posted Close Date/Time are not guaranteed to be considered in any final summary, analysis, reporting, or decision-making that takes place once this period lapses.

FINAL VERSION TO BE SUBMITTED IF RATIFIED

Please click here to download a copy of the PDF below.

PDF
nameAL-ALAC-ST-0713-04-00-EN.pdf

The final version to be submitted, if the draft is ratified, will be placed here by upon completion of the vote. 

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 to require Thick Whois for all gTLDs in line with our previous Statements and Correspondence.

FIRST DRAFT SUBMITTED

The ALAC strongly supports the recommendation to implement require Thick Whois for all gTLDs.

...