[nc-whois] Re: WHOIS Searchability

[k@widgital.com (Kristy McKee)]

Danny,

Thank you!  I appreciate your eye for detail and your very prompt response.

While uWHO was included in our preliminary report, it's inclusion was 
nearly overlooked in this version.  This prompted me to go through our 
notes once more to ensure all the data collected (with regard to this 
subject matter) is indeed represented in this Issue Report.  Please do not 
hesitate to let me know should you discover more shortcomings as the report 
develops.


With regard to your concluding comment/question:

Cost in general has been an issue in discussions here, within the TF and in 
other virtual and non-virtual spaces.  Maybe it is not so great we have no 
decision; however, as you are aware I am not in favor of speeding through a 
process.  The luxury of time provides opportunity for more thoughtfully 
presented ideas to be put forward for consideration.

Appendix W may be one avenue to control cost and yet we need to do our best 
to define our needs, wants, and goals prior to determining who pays for 
what.  We also must keep a close eye on the agreements and make sure we 
understand and are able to locate preexisting resources that we may be able 
to tap, like this one for example, to help illustrate cost controls.

Thank you for not letting us overlook this valuable information.


Sincerely,


Kristy McKee




At 04:14 PM 3/4/2003 -0500, DannyYounger@cs.com wrote:
>Re:  http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/nc-whois/Arc00/doc00091.doc
>
>Kristy,
>
>With regard to your initial draft of the issues paper on WHOIS Searchability,
>I note that while you have referenced the RAA, you have overlooked citing
>Appendix W of the .com Registry Agreement:
>
>1. Centralized Whois
>
>Registry Operator shall develop and deploy a centralized Whois for the .com,
>.net, and .org TLDs if mandated by ICANN insofar as reasonably feasible,
>particularly in view of Registry Operator's dependence on cooperation of
>third parties.
>
>2. Research, Development and Infrastructure Improvements
>
>During the period between the Effective Date of this Agreement and December
>31, 2010, Registry Operator agrees to expend a minimum of US$200,000,000 for
>research, development, and infrastructure improvements to the .com, .net, and
>.org Registries (the "Improvements"). The intent of the Improvements is to
>increase the efficiency and stability of the .com, .net and .org Registries.
>Registry Operator shall ensure that a substantial portion of expenditures for
>the Improvements occurs prior to November 10, 2007. Registry Operator shall
>provide ICANN with an annual report on this research and development activity.
>
>Registry Operator agrees that one of the early goals of the Improvements is
>to design and develop a Universal Whois Service that will allow public access
>and effective use of Whois across all Registries and all TLDs. Registry
>Operator shall commence research and development of the Universal Whois
>Service no later than December 31, 2001. Registry Operator shall, insofar as
>is reasonably possible in view of Registry Operator's dependence on the
>cooperation of third parties, strive to achieve significant progress in
>implementing the Universal Whois Service by December 31, 2002.
>
>Registry Operator further agrees that if it successfully designs and develops
>the Universal Whois Service it will (a) make the Application Program
>Interfaces necessary to produce software which can efficiently deploy and use
>the Universal Whois Service available to applications developers on an open,
>non-proprietary, standards-based and royalty-free basis, and (b) make the
>Universal Whois Service available at a standardized reasonable fee to be
>negotiated with ICANN.
>
>---------
>
>On a related note, I would ask why VeriSign is charging registrars for
>provision of the RGP service if VeriSign has already contractually agreed to
>commit $200,000,000 for infrastructure improvements? Why should registrars
>(and in turn registrants) have to absorb these charges?
>
>Best regards,
>-- Danny --