The PDP WG should take into account other ICANN initiatives that may help inform the deliberations limited to this specific topic such as;
| Topic | Further Information | Possibly of relevance to WG deliberations |
|---|---|---|
| Registry/registrar separation and related developments with regards to access to customer data | http://www.icann.org/en/resources/registries/removal-cross-ownership | |
| Output from any/all of the four Whois Studies chartered by the GNSO Council, if completed in time for consideration by the WG | http://gnso.icann.org/en/issues/whois/studies | |
| The 2004 transition of .ORG from thin to thick | ||
| Results of the RAA negotiations | https://community.icann.org/x/MQXPAQ | |
| Recommendations of the Whois Review Team | http://www.icann.org/en/about/aoc-review/whois/final-report-11may12-en | Although the .COM and .NET WHOIS models have remained unchanged for 11 years, there are some recommendations underway within the GNSO asking the community to consider the value of moving thin registries to a “thick WHOIS” model. Published on November 22, 2011, the comments ask the Community what “positive and/or negative effects” may arise from such a change. As this evaluation is now taking place, it is not an existing policy which the Review Team could evaluate. However, we note the proceeding could lead to significant changes in the area. |
| Whois Survey Requirements Working Group | http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/whois-requirements-wg.htm | |
| Board new Whois Effort | http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/documents/prelim-report-08nov12-en.htm#1.b |
