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 9

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 4.0
 \ [PDF, 635 KB\].

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

Wiki Markup

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:

policy-staff@icann.org

...

We believe that the Preliminary Issue Report reasonably reflect the issues and specifications for a PDP, with one exception. Specifically the following is problematic:

Wiki Markup*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? Wiki MarkupFor 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 two reasons:

...