Re: [CCWG-ACCT] ICANN comment re gTLD Directory Services and the ICANN Bylaws
Somewhere between the second and third. Sent by me after internal coordination with my fellow board members and reflecting a consistent stream of board actions over the past few years. We did not, however, pass a formal resolution. My preference is for everyone to focus on the substance of the comment and not so much on the level of authority. Steve Crocker Sent from my iPhone
On Aug 17, 2015, at 11:27 PM, Stephen Deerhake <sdeerhake@nic.as> wrote:
Thank you for this (and I do mean that, having been on the call that you reference).
I am a bit confused as to whether or not this is your opinion as an individual, or as an ICANN Board member, or if you are expressing the opinion of the ICANN Board. There's a lot of first person expression in what you have written, but also a lot of "we", indicating 3rd person. And the conclusion ("On behalf of the ICANN Board of Directors") suggests that this is a statement is being issued by the ICANN Board, and (naturally) "signed" by it's Chairperson.
So which is it?
A personal statement by you as a member of the ICANN Community?
A personal statement by you as an ICANN Board Member?
Or a statement by the ICANN Board issued by you as the Chairperson?
Best,
/Stephen Deerhake
-----Original Message----- From: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Steve Crocker Sent: Monday, August 17, 2015 10:48 PM To: Accountability Cross Community <accountability-cross-community@icann.org> Cc: Steve Crocker <steve.crocker@icann.org> Subject: [CCWG-ACCT] ICANN comment re gTLD Directory Services and the ICANN Bylaws
For more than a decade we have been wrestling with how to best reform Whois and specifically how we might best balance the very legitimate, though often conflicting goals of privacy and transparency, of accuracy and cost, and, in the larger sense, how to achieve overall effectiveness while respecting the values of the broad set of users of the Internet
During the CCWG webinar on 4 August 2015[1] I said it would be unacceptable to copy the exact wording of the WHOIS review into ICANN's Bylaws. This may seem like a very specific detail amidst the myriad of "larger" governance issues included in the CCWG proposal, so some may wonder why this merits attention. I put "larger" in quotes because to many, governance issues seem of premier importance and everything else is subordinate. Well, yes, governance issues are commanding enormous attention, but ICANN is first and foremost an organization that has a very specific mission on behalf of the Internet and its users, and that means we have to pay attention to the substance of what we do.
Let me make it clear that we're committed to improving and strengthening the gTLD registration data system, not weakening it, and I think the language that is currently written into the Whois review could impede long-needed improvements. See the end of this message for some of the actions ICANN and the IETF have taken over the past few years. In proposing to move the AoC Review obligations into ICANN's Bylaws, the language should be consistent with, and supportive of, the advancements we have made and the goals we have set for ourselves.
The AoC[2] language regarding the Whois reviews that was crafted in 2009 states:
9.3.1 ICANN additionally commits to enforcing its existing policy relating to WHOIS, subject to applicable laws. Such existing policy requires that ICANN implement measures to maintain timely, unrestricted and public access to accurate and complete WHOIS information, including registrant, technical, billing, and administrative contact information.
These words, well intentioned at the time they were written, embody the assumption that the architecture of the existing gTLD directory system that uses the WHOIS protocol is appropriate and that improvement is merely a matter of enforcement. I do not believe it is that simple, and I do not believe we should be embedding this assumption into ICANN's Bylaws.
The current wording is tied to the original - may I say "ancient?" - model that is sorely in need of overhaul. I am of the strong opinion that we must not import into ICANN's Bylaws, the words drafted six years ago. I am concerned that a strict interpretation of the existing language is inconsistent with structural changes to the system, and hence it would be a mistake to continue to use that language.
Rather, I feel this is the time to revise those words to fit both the current WHOIS service and the potential future needs for contact information, and to do so in a way that makes it clear to all parties that improvements and strengthening is the right direction for gTLD directory services to evolve.
We will shortly propose language that is consistent with the intent of the existing language. It will make clear that we continue to be committed to a strong system and it will include the possibility of significant improvements that may require structural changes to the entire system.
Steve Crocker
On behalf of the ICANN Board of Directors ==========================================================
Selected list of actions, including IETF work on WEIRDS, to strengthen the gTLD Directory Services and to build a path toward possible structural improvements.
. Board Working Group-Board created a new "Board Working Group on Registration Data Directory Services" to support WHOIS as a strategic priority, oversee implementation/improvement of WHOIS, liaise with GNSO on PDP for next generation registration directory services, and liaise with the next WHOIS Review Team.
. Board-Initiated Policy Development-Board adopted a "Process Framework" developed to provide guidance for a Board-initiated GNSO PDP to define the purpose of collecting, maintaining and providing access to gTLD registration data, and consider safeguards for protecting data, using the recommendations in the EWG Final Report as input/foundation for new gTLD policy.
. Next Generation Registration Directory Service-Expert Working Group on gTLD Directory Services (EWG), created under Board direction, issued their report, "A Next-Generation Registration Directory Service (RDS"), after exhaustive research and community consultation, to help redefine the purpose and provision of gTLD registration data, and develop a potential new model to replace today's WHOIS system.
. Preliminary Issue Report-To move forward with the PDP on Next-Generation gTLD Registration Directory Services to Replace WHOIS (above) a Preliminary Issue Report was submitted to the GNSO Council and is now open for public comment
. Two-Pronged Approach to WHOIS-In 2012 the Board adopted a two-pronged approach to address the recommendations of the first WHOIS Review Team, calling for ICANN to (i) continue to fully enforce existing consensus policy and contractual conditions relating to WHOIS (See Action Plan), and (ii) create an expert working group to determine the fundamental purpose and objectives of collecting, maintaining and providing access to gTLD registration data, to serve as a foundation for a Board-initiated GNSO PDP.
. Strategic Priority-WHOIS is emphasized in ICANN's Strategic Plan and funded in its Operating Plans and Budgets.
. RAA- Adoption of a new 2013 Registrar Accreditation Agreement, which includes many Compliance and WHOIS related enhancements, such as stricter validation and verification requirements.
. Registry Agreements- Adoption of a New gTLD Registry Agreement requiring registrars to use 2013 RAA and incorporate many WHOIS improvements, and transition of 2013 RAA into existing registry agreements.
. New IETF Protocol-IETF's WEIRDS finalized the new Registration Data Access Protocol (RDAP) that will replace the (port-43) WHOIS protocol.
. Privacy & Proxy Services-A public comment period recently closed on the Initial Report of a GNSO Working Group on issues relating to the accreditation of privacy and proxy service providers; ICANN has committed to developing and implementing such a program.
. Translation/Transliteration of Contact Info-A public comment period recently closed on recommendations from the GNSO's PDP on Translation and Transliteration of Contact Information regarding gTLD non-ASCII script contact information.
. WHOIS Accuracy Reporting System-Work is ongoing to develop a WHOIS Accuracy Reporting System (ARS), following-up on the Pilot Study for WHOIS Accuracy Reporting System that was released last year.
[1] See https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=54692681
[2] https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/affirmation-of-commitments-2009-09-30- en
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
My preference is for everyone to focus on the substance of the comment and not so much on the level of authority.
+1 thank you Steve for this very clear substantive commentary and background on the cumulated efforts to strengthen the gTLD Directory Services Carlos Raul
Steve Crocker
Sent from my iPhone
On Aug 17, 2015, at 11:27 PM, Stephen Deerhake <sdeerhake@nic.as> wrote:
Thank you for this (and I do mean that, having been on the call that you reference).
I am a bit confused as to whether or not this is your opinion as an individual, or as an ICANN Board member, or if you are expressing the opinion of the ICANN Board. There's a lot of first person expression in what you have written, but also a lot of "we", indicating 3rd person. And the conclusion ("On behalf of the ICANN Board of Directors") suggests that this is a statement is being issued by the ICANN Board, and (naturally) "signed" by it's Chairperson.
So which is it?
A personal statement by you as a member of the ICANN Community?
A personal statement by you as an ICANN Board Member?
Or a statement by the ICANN Board issued by you as the Chairperson?
Best,
/Stephen Deerhake
-----Original Message----- From: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Steve Crocker Sent: Monday, August 17, 2015 10:48 PM To: Accountability Cross Community <accountability-cross-community@icann.org> Cc: Steve Crocker <steve.crocker@icann.org> Subject: [CCWG-ACCT] ICANN comment re gTLD Directory Services and the ICANN Bylaws
For more than a decade we have been wrestling with how to best reform Whois and specifically how we might best balance the very legitimate, though often conflicting goals of privacy and transparency, of accuracy and cost, and, in the larger sense, how to achieve overall effectiveness while respecting the values of the broad set of users of the Internet
During the CCWG webinar on 4 August 2015[1] I said it would be unacceptable to copy the exact wording of the WHOIS review into ICANN's Bylaws. This may seem like a very specific detail amidst the myriad of "larger" governance issues included in the CCWG proposal, so some may wonder why this merits attention. I put "larger" in quotes because to many, governance issues seem of premier importance and everything else is subordinate. Well, yes, governance issues are commanding enormous attention, but ICANN is first and foremost an organization that has a very specific mission on behalf of the Internet and its users, and that means we have to pay attention to the substance of what we do.
Let me make it clear that we're committed to improving and strengthening the gTLD registration data system, not weakening it, and I think the language that is currently written into the Whois review could impede long-needed improvements. See the end of this message for some of the actions ICANN and the IETF have taken over the past few years. In proposing to move the AoC Review obligations into ICANN's Bylaws, the language should be consistent with, and supportive of, the advancements we have made and the goals we have set for ourselves.
The AoC[2] language regarding the Whois reviews that was crafted in 2009 states:
9.3.1 ICANN additionally commits to enforcing its existing policy relating to WHOIS, subject to applicable laws. Such existing policy requires that ICANN implement measures to maintain timely, unrestricted and public access to accurate and complete WHOIS information, including registrant, technical, billing, and administrative contact information.
These words, well intentioned at the time they were written, embody the assumption that the architecture of the existing gTLD directory system that uses the WHOIS protocol is appropriate and that improvement is merely a matter of enforcement. I do not believe it is that simple, and I do not believe we should be embedding this assumption into ICANN's Bylaws.
The current wording is tied to the original - may I say "ancient?" - model that is sorely in need of overhaul. I am of the strong opinion that we must not import into ICANN's Bylaws, the words drafted six years ago. I am concerned that a strict interpretation of the existing language is inconsistent with structural changes to the system, and hence it would be a mistake to continue to use that language.
Rather, I feel this is the time to revise those words to fit both the current WHOIS service and the potential future needs for contact information, and to do so in a way that makes it clear to all parties that improvements and strengthening is the right direction for gTLD directory services to evolve.
We will shortly propose language that is consistent with the intent of the existing language. It will make clear that we continue to be committed to a strong system and it will include the possibility of significant improvements that may require structural changes to the entire system.
Steve Crocker
On behalf of the ICANN Board of Directors ==========================================================
Selected list of actions, including IETF work on WEIRDS, to strengthen the gTLD Directory Services and to build a path toward possible structural improvements.
. Board Working Group-Board created a new "Board Working Group on Registration Data Directory Services" to support WHOIS as a strategic priority, oversee implementation/improvement of WHOIS, liaise with GNSO on PDP for next generation registration directory services, and liaise with the next WHOIS Review Team.
. Board-Initiated Policy Development-Board adopted a "Process Framework" developed to provide guidance for a Board-initiated GNSO PDP to define the purpose of collecting, maintaining and providing access to gTLD registration data, and consider safeguards for protecting data, using the recommendations in the EWG Final Report as input/foundation for new gTLD policy.
. Next Generation Registration Directory Service-Expert Working Group on gTLD Directory Services (EWG), created under Board direction, issued their report, "A Next-Generation Registration Directory Service (RDS"), after exhaustive research and community consultation, to help redefine the purpose and provision of gTLD registration data, and develop a potential new model to replace today's WHOIS system.
. Preliminary Issue Report-To move forward with the PDP on Next-Generation gTLD Registration Directory Services to Replace WHOIS (above) a Preliminary Issue Report was submitted to the GNSO Council and is now open for public comment
. Two-Pronged Approach to WHOIS-In 2012 the Board adopted a two-pronged approach to address the recommendations of the first WHOIS Review Team, calling for ICANN to (i) continue to fully enforce existing consensus policy and contractual conditions relating to WHOIS (See Action Plan), and (ii) create an expert working group to determine the fundamental purpose and objectives of collecting, maintaining and providing access to gTLD registration data, to serve as a foundation for a Board-initiated GNSO PDP.
. Strategic Priority-WHOIS is emphasized in ICANN's Strategic Plan and funded in its Operating Plans and Budgets.
. RAA- Adoption of a new 2013 Registrar Accreditation Agreement, which includes many Compliance and WHOIS related enhancements, such as stricter validation and verification requirements.
. Registry Agreements- Adoption of a New gTLD Registry Agreement requiring registrars to use 2013 RAA and incorporate many WHOIS improvements, and transition of 2013 RAA into existing registry agreements.
. New IETF Protocol-IETF's WEIRDS finalized the new Registration Data Access Protocol (RDAP) that will replace the (port-43) WHOIS protocol.
. Privacy & Proxy Services-A public comment period recently closed on the Initial Report of a GNSO Working Group on issues relating to the accreditation of privacy and proxy service providers; ICANN has committed to developing and implementing such a program.
. Translation/Transliteration of Contact Info-A public comment period recently closed on recommendations from the GNSO's PDP on Translation and Transliteration of Contact Information regarding gTLD non-ASCII script contact information.
. WHOIS Accuracy Reporting System-Work is ongoing to develop a WHOIS Accuracy Reporting System (ARS), following-up on the Pilot Study for WHOIS Accuracy Reporting System that was released last year.
[1] See https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=54692681
[2] https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/affirmation-of-commitments-2009-09-30- en
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
Thanks for the context & clarification, Steve. And I generally support the sentiment behind this position, which reminded of the numerous policies and contract provisions requiring Registrars to confirm/validate registrant ID and actions via email. At a time when the industry is innovating new ways to communicate with its customers (mobile, social, apps, etc.) it is unwise to handcuff the future to contemporary technologies, and their associated shortcomings. WHOIS is no exception. Thanks‹ J. On 8/17/15, 22:37 , "accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org on behalf of Steve Crocker" <accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org on behalf of steve.crocker@icann.org> wrote:
Somewhere between the second and third. Sent by me after internal coordination with my fellow board members and reflecting a consistent stream of board actions over the past few years. We did not, however, pass a formal resolution.
My preference is for everyone to focus on the substance of the comment and not so much on the level of authority.
Steve Crocker
Sent from my iPhone
On Aug 17, 2015, at 11:27 PM, Stephen Deerhake <sdeerhake@nic.as> wrote:
Thank you for this (and I do mean that, having been on the call that you reference).
I am a bit confused as to whether or not this is your opinion as an individual, or as an ICANN Board member, or if you are expressing the opinion of the ICANN Board. There's a lot of first person expression in what you have written, but also a lot of "we", indicating 3rd person. And the conclusion ("On behalf of the ICANN Board of Directors") suggests that this is a statement is being issued by the ICANN Board, and (naturally) "signed" by it's Chairperson.
So which is it?
A personal statement by you as a member of the ICANN Community?
A personal statement by you as an ICANN Board Member?
Or a statement by the ICANN Board issued by you as the Chairperson?
Best,
/Stephen Deerhake
-----Original Message----- From: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Steve Crocker Sent: Monday, August 17, 2015 10:48 PM To: Accountability Cross Community <accountability-cross-community@icann.org> Cc: Steve Crocker <steve.crocker@icann.org> Subject: [CCWG-ACCT] ICANN comment re gTLD Directory Services and the ICANN Bylaws
For more than a decade we have been wrestling with how to best reform Whois and specifically how we might best balance the very legitimate, though often conflicting goals of privacy and transparency, of accuracy and cost, and, in the larger sense, how to achieve overall effectiveness while respecting the values of the broad set of users of the Internet
During the CCWG webinar on 4 August 2015[1] I said it would be unacceptable to copy the exact wording of the WHOIS review into ICANN's Bylaws. This may seem like a very specific detail amidst the myriad of "larger" governance issues included in the CCWG proposal, so some may wonder why this merits attention. I put "larger" in quotes because to many, governance issues seem of premier importance and everything else is subordinate. Well, yes, governance issues are commanding enormous attention, but ICANN is first and foremost an organization that has a very specific mission on behalf of the Internet and its users, and that means we have to pay attention to the substance of what we do.
Let me make it clear that we're committed to improving and strengthening the gTLD registration data system, not weakening it, and I think the language that is currently written into the Whois review could impede long-needed improvements. See the end of this message for some of the actions ICANN and the IETF have taken over the past few years. In proposing to move the AoC Review obligations into ICANN's Bylaws, the language should be consistent with, and supportive of, the advancements we have made and the goals we have set for ourselves.
The AoC[2] language regarding the Whois reviews that was crafted in 2009 states:
9.3.1 ICANN additionally commits to enforcing its existing policy relating to WHOIS, subject to applicable laws. Such existing policy requires that ICANN implement measures to maintain timely, unrestricted and public access to accurate and complete WHOIS information, including registrant, technical, billing, and administrative contact information.
These words, well intentioned at the time they were written, embody the assumption that the architecture of the existing gTLD directory system that uses the WHOIS protocol is appropriate and that improvement is merely a matter of enforcement. I do not believe it is that simple, and I do not believe we should be embedding this assumption into ICANN's Bylaws.
The current wording is tied to the original - may I say "ancient?" - model that is sorely in need of overhaul. I am of the strong opinion that we must not import into ICANN's Bylaws, the words drafted six years ago. I am concerned that a strict interpretation of the existing language is inconsistent with structural changes to the system, and hence it would be a mistake to continue to use that language.
Rather, I feel this is the time to revise those words to fit both the current WHOIS service and the potential future needs for contact information, and to do so in a way that makes it clear to all parties that improvements and strengthening is the right direction for gTLD directory services to evolve.
We will shortly propose language that is consistent with the intent of the existing language. It will make clear that we continue to be committed to a strong system and it will include the possibility of significant improvements that may require structural changes to the entire system.
Steve Crocker
On behalf of the ICANN Board of Directors ==========================================================
Selected list of actions, including IETF work on WEIRDS, to strengthen the gTLD Directory Services and to build a path toward possible structural improvements.
. Board Working Group-Board created a new "Board Working Group on Registration Data Directory Services" to support WHOIS as a strategic priority, oversee implementation/improvement of WHOIS, liaise with GNSO on PDP for next generation registration directory services, and liaise with the next WHOIS Review Team.
. Board-Initiated Policy Development-Board adopted a "Process Framework" developed to provide guidance for a Board-initiated GNSO PDP to define the purpose of collecting, maintaining and providing access to gTLD registration data, and consider safeguards for protecting data, using the recommendations in the EWG Final Report as input/foundation for new gTLD policy.
. Next Generation Registration Directory Service-Expert Working Group on gTLD Directory Services (EWG), created under Board direction, issued their report, "A Next-Generation Registration Directory Service (RDS"), after exhaustive research and community consultation, to help redefine the purpose and provision of gTLD registration data, and develop a potential new model to replace today's WHOIS system.
. Preliminary Issue Report-To move forward with the PDP on Next-Generation gTLD Registration Directory Services to Replace WHOIS (above) a Preliminary Issue Report was submitted to the GNSO Council and is now open for public comment
. Two-Pronged Approach to WHOIS-In 2012 the Board adopted a two-pronged approach to address the recommendations of the first WHOIS Review Team, calling for ICANN to (i) continue to fully enforce existing consensus policy and contractual conditions relating to WHOIS (See Action Plan), and (ii) create an expert working group to determine the fundamental purpose and objectives of collecting, maintaining and providing access to gTLD registration data, to serve as a foundation for a Board-initiated GNSO PDP.
. Strategic Priority-WHOIS is emphasized in ICANN's Strategic Plan and funded in its Operating Plans and Budgets.
. RAA- Adoption of a new 2013 Registrar Accreditation Agreement, which includes many Compliance and WHOIS related enhancements, such as stricter validation and verification requirements.
. Registry Agreements- Adoption of a New gTLD Registry Agreement requiring registrars to use 2013 RAA and incorporate many WHOIS improvements, and transition of 2013 RAA into existing registry agreements.
. New IETF Protocol-IETF's WEIRDS finalized the new Registration Data Access Protocol (RDAP) that will replace the (port-43) WHOIS protocol.
. Privacy & Proxy Services-A public comment period recently closed on the Initial Report of a GNSO Working Group on issues relating to the accreditation of privacy and proxy service providers; ICANN has committed to developing and implementing such a program.
. Translation/Transliteration of Contact Info-A public comment period recently closed on recommendations from the GNSO's PDP on Translation and Transliteration of Contact Information regarding gTLD non-ASCII script contact information.
. WHOIS Accuracy Reporting System-Work is ongoing to develop a WHOIS Accuracy Reporting System (ARS), following-up on the Pilot Study for WHOIS Accuracy Reporting System that was released last year.
[1] See https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=54692681
[2]
https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/affirmation-of-commitments-2009-09- 30- en
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
participants (3)
-
Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez -
James M. Bladel -
Steve Crocker