AT-LARGE GATEWAY
At-Large Regional Policy Engagement Program (ARPEP)
At-Large Review Implementation Plan Development
Page History
Comment Period | Important Information Links | |
Open Date: | 21 November 2011 | |
Close Date: | 30 December 2011 | |
Time (UTC): | 23:59 | |
Originating Organization: | ICANN Policy Department | |
Purpose: | ICANN Staff is seeking comments on the Preliminary Issue Report on 'Thick' Whois | |
Current Status: | The Preliminary Issue Report explores the issue of 'thick' Whois and makes recommendations on whether the GNSO Council should initiate a policy development process on the requirement of 'thick' Whois for all incumbent gTLDs. This Public Comment solicitation represents an opportunity to share perspectives on 'thick' Whois, the Preliminary Issue Report contents, and whether the GNSO Council should initiate a Policy Development Process on this issue. | |
Next Steps: | The Preliminary Issue Report will be updated to reflect community feedback submitted through this forum. A Final Issue Report will then be presented to the GNSO Council for its consideration as to whether a Policy Development Process should be initiated. | |
Staff Contact: | Marika Konings | |
Email: |
Click here to download the ALAC Statement on the Thick Whois Preliminary Report in PDF format.
ALAC Statement on the Thick Whois Preliminary Report
...
We believe that the Preliminary Issue Report reasonably reflect the issues and specifications for a PDP, with one exception. Specifically the following is problematic:
...
*Are there other models that could / should be considered?* For example, in the context of registrar deliberations on this issue, it was suggested that ‘depositing the \ [W\]hois at a common third party across all ICANN-contracted TLDs’ could be considered.
We find this problematic for three reasons:
...
We believe that the Preliminary Issue Report reasonably reflect the issues and specifications for a PDP, with one exception. Specifically the following is problematic:
Are there other models that could / should be considered?
For example, in the context of registrar deliberations on this issue, it was suggested that ‘depositing the \ [W\]hois at a common third party across all ICANN-contracted TLDs’ could be considered. Wiki Markup
We find this problematic for two reasons:
...
