Changes

A Thick Whois Server stores complete and accurate information from all registrars regarding registered domain names and their registrants. This information is available to the registry operator and it can facilitate bulk transfers of all domain names to another registrar in the event of a registrar failure. Thick Whois also enables faster queries.<ref>[http://www.circleid.com/posts/com_net_thick_or_thin/ .COM and .NET: Thick Or Thin?]</ref>

A Thick Whois Server stores complete and accurate information from all registrars regarding registered domain names and their registrants. This information is available to the registry operator and it can facilitate bulk transfers of all domain names to another registrar in the event of a registrar failure. Thick Whois also enables faster queries.<ref>[http://www.circleid.com/posts/com_net_thick_or_thin/ .COM and .NET: Thick Or Thin?]</ref>

In November 2011, ICANN Staff issued a Preliminary Issue Report on 'Thick' Whois to determine if the [[GNSO]] Council needs to conduct a [[PDP|Policy Development Process]] (PDP) regarding the requirements for existing [[gTLD]]s.<ref>[http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/thick-whois-preliminary-report-21nov11-en.htm Preliminary Issue Report on 'Thick' Whois]</ref> The ICANN community was divided on the issue. In a statement, [[Verisign]] said that it will ''"neither advocate for nor against the initiation of a PDP."''The company also argued that its Whois model for [[.com]], [[.net]], [[.name]] and [[.jobs]] is effective but if the internet community and its customers believed that thick Whois is a better, it will respect and implement the policy. The [[Intellectual Property Constituency]] supports Whois implementation. The constituency believed that it will help prevent abuses on intellectual property rights and consumer fraud. <ref>[http://domainincite.com/fight-brewing-over-thick-com-whois/ Fight brewing over thick .com Whois]</ref> On the other hand, [[Wendy Seltzer]] of the [[NCUC|Non-Commercial Users Constituency]] (NCUC) expressed her concern on the impact of further Whois expansion on privacy rights. She pointed out that, ''"Moving all data to the registry could facilitate invasion of privacy and decrease the jurisdictional control registrants have through their choice of registrar."''<ref>[http://forum.icann.org/lists/thick-whois-preliminary-report/msg00006.html NCUC Comments on Thick Whois]</ref>

In November 2011, ICANN Staff issued a Preliminary Issue Report on 'Thick' Whois to determine if the [[GNSO]] Council needs to conduct a [[PDP|Policy Development Process]] (PDP) regarding the Whois requirements made of existing [[gTLD]]s.<ref>[http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/thick-whois-preliminary-report-21nov11-en.htm Preliminary Issue Report on 'Thick' Whois]</ref> The ICANN community was divided on the issue. In a statement, [[Verisign]] said that it will ''"neither advocate for nor against the initiation of a PDP."''The company also argued that its Whois model for [[.com]], [[.net]], [[.name]] and [[.jobs]] is effective but if the internet community and its customers believed that thick Whois is a better, it will respect and implement the policy. The [[Intellectual Property Constituency]] supports Whois implementation. The constituency believed that it will help prevent abuses on intellectual property rights and consumer fraud. <ref>[http://domainincite.com/fight-brewing-over-thick-com-whois/ Fight brewing over thick .com Whois]</ref> On the other hand, [[Wendy Seltzer]] of the [[NCUC|Non-Commercial Users Constituency]] (NCUC) expressed her concern on the impact of further Whois expansion on privacy rights. She pointed out that, ''"Moving all data to the registry could facilitate invasion of privacy and decrease the jurisdictional control registrants have through their choice of registrar."''<ref>[http://forum.icann.org/lists/thick-whois-preliminary-report/msg00006.html NCUC Comments on Thick Whois]</ref>

In February 2012, the GNSO Council postponed its decision to determine if it is necessary for Verisign to implement the thick Whois database on .com and all the other gTLDs under its management. The Policy Development Process regarding the issue was also delayed due to the request of the NCUC. All registry operators except Verisign were required to implement Thick Whois.<ref> [http://domainincite.com/thick-com-whois-policy-delayed/ Thick .com Whois policy delayed]</ref> In August, 2012, the GNSO Council, along with two other ICANN constituencies sent a letter to ICANN chastising it for its decision to not require Verisign to implement Thick Whois for the [[.com]] TLD.<ref>[http://domainnamewire.com/2012/08/21/constituencies-blast-icanns-closed-door-verisign-com-contract-renewal/ Constituencies Blast ICANNs Closed Door Verisign Com Contract Renewal, DomainNameWire.com]</ref>

In February 2012, the GNSO Council postponed its decision to determine if it is necessary for Verisign to implement the thick Whois database on .com and all the other gTLDs under its management. The Policy Development Process regarding the issue was also delayed due to the request of the NCUC. All registry operators except Verisign were required to implement Thick Whois.<ref> [http://domainincite.com/thick-com-whois-policy-delayed/ Thick .com Whois policy delayed]</ref> In August, 2012, the GNSO Council, along with two other ICANN constituencies sent a letter to ICANN chastising it for its decision to not require Verisign to implement Thick Whois for the [[.com]] TLD.<ref>[http://domainnamewire.com/2012/08/21/constituencies-blast-icanns-closed-door-verisign-com-contract-renewal/ Constituencies Blast ICANNs Closed Door Verisign Com Contract Renewal, DomainNameWire.com]</ref>