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-...
I strongly support this, and I have suggested that the ALAC support such a modification to that AoC Review Bylaws, along with another related change that AoC RTs have the authority to recommend changes to their respective Bylaws instead of vesting that authority in the ATRT. Alan At 17/08/2015 10:47 PM, Steve Crocker wrote:
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 ICANNs 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 were 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 ICANNs 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 ICANNs 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 ICANNs 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 GroupBoard 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 DevelopmentBoard 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 ServiceExpert 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 todays WHOIS system.
Preliminary Issue ReportTo 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 WHOISIn 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 PriorityWHOIS is emphasized in ICANNs 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 ProtocolIETFs WEIRDS finalized the new Registration Data Access Protocol (RDAP) that will replace the (port-43) WHOIS protocol.
Privacy & Proxy ServicesA 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 InfoA public comment period recently closed on recommendations from the GNSOs PDP on Translation and Transliteration of Contact Information regarding gTLD non-ASCII script contact information.
WHOIS Accuracy Reporting SystemWork 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-...
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
Hi, Has the suggested modified language been floated yet? avri On 18-Aug-15 00:14, Alan Greenberg wrote:
I strongly support this, and I have suggested that the ALAC support such a modification to that AoC Review Bylaws, along with another related change that AoC RTs have the authority to recommend changes to their respective Bylaws instead of vesting that authority in the ATRT.
Alan
At 17/08/2015 10:47 PM, Steve Crocker wrote:
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-...
_______________________________________________ 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
--- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus
Never mind that the 2009 language would appear to contravene Data Protection laws in 30 or more countries . . On 18/08/15 12:35, Avri Doria wrote:
Hi,
Has the suggested modified language been floated yet?
avri
On 18-Aug-15 00:14, Alan Greenberg wrote:
I strongly support this, and I have suggested that the ALAC support such a modification to that AoC Review Bylaws, along with another related change that AoC RTs have the authority to recommend changes to their respective Bylaws instead of vesting that authority in the ATRT.
Alan
At 17/08/2015 10:47 PM, Steve Crocker wrote:
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-...
_______________________________________________ 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
--- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
Correct. The existing language basically says that we must work towards universal and complete accessibility of all Whois info, something that we KNOW is problematic. Alan At 18/08/2015 07:54 AM, Nigel Roberts wrote:
Never mind that the 2009 language would appear to contravene Data Protection laws in 30 or more countries . .
On 18/08/15 12:35, Avri Doria wrote:
Hi,
Has the suggested modified language been floated yet?
avri
On 18-Aug-15 00:14, Alan Greenberg wrote:
I strongly support this, and I have suggested that the ALAC support such a modification to that AoC Review Bylaws, along with another related change that AoC RTs have the authority to recommend changes to their respective Bylaws instead of vesting that authority in the ATRT.
Alan
At 17/08/2015 10:47 PM, Steve Crocker wrote:
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 ICANNs 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 were 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 ICANNs 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 ICANNs 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 ICANNs 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 GroupBoard 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 DevelopmentBoard 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 ServiceExpert 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 todays WHOIS system.
Preliminary Issue ReportTo 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 WHOISIn 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 PriorityWHOIS is emphasized in ICANNs 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 ProtocolIETFs WEIRDS finalized the new Registration Data Access Protocol (RDAP) that will replace the (port-43) WHOIS protocol.
Privacy & Proxy ServicesA 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 InfoA public comment period recently closed on recommendations from the GNSOs PDP on Translation and Transliteration of Contact Information regarding gTLD non-ASCII script contact information.
WHOIS Accuracy Reporting SystemWork 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-...
_______________________________________________ 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
--- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus
_______________________________________________ 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 bringing this up. Way more than 30 countries, I would suggest. Stephanie Perrin On 2015-08-18 7:54, Nigel Roberts wrote:
Never mind that the 2009 language would appear to contravene Data Protection laws in 30 or more countries . .
On 18/08/15 12:35, Avri Doria wrote:
Hi,
Has the suggested modified language been floated yet?
avri
On 18-Aug-15 00:14, Alan Greenberg wrote:
I strongly support this, and I have suggested that the ALAC support such a modification to that AoC Review Bylaws, along with another related change that AoC RTs have the authority to recommend changes to their respective Bylaws instead of vesting that authority in the ATRT.
Alan
At 17/08/2015 10:47 PM, Steve Crocker wrote:
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-...
_______________________________________________ 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
--- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus
_______________________________________________ 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
The area have been alluded to, and Steve said that specifics are forthcoming. Alan At 18/08/2015 07:35 AM, Avri Doria wrote:
Hi,
Has the suggested modified language been floated yet?
avri
On 18-Aug-15 00:14, Alan Greenberg wrote:
I strongly support this, and I have suggested that the ALAC support such a modification to that AoC Review Bylaws, along with another related change that AoC RTs have the authority to recommend changes to their respective Bylaws instead of vesting that authority in the ATRT.
Alan
At 17/08/2015 10:47 PM, Steve Crocker wrote:
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 ICANNs 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 were 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 ICANNs 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 ICANNs 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 ICANNs 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 GroupBoard 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 DevelopmentBoard 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 ServiceExpert 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 todays WHOIS system.
Preliminary Issue ReportTo 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 WHOISIn 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 PriorityWHOIS is emphasized in ICANNs 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 ProtocolIETFs WEIRDS finalized the new Registration Data Access Protocol (RDAP) that will replace the (port-43) WHOIS protocol.
Privacy & Proxy ServicesA 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 InfoA public comment period recently closed on recommendations from the GNSOs PDP on Translation and Transliteration of Contact Information regarding gTLD non-ASCII script contact information.
WHOIS Accuracy Reporting SystemWork 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-...
_______________________________________________ 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
--- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
I strongly support Steve Crocker's view on who is. "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" The last few years of participating on an RIR mailing list on IP policy issues has made me very aware of the ongoing need for whois policy principles/language to evolve as the network dynamics change; and I think that the IOT and global v6 may well have us all putting our thinking caps on with reference to who is policy. Rudi Daniel On Aug 17, 2015 10:47 PM, "Steve Crocker" <steve.crocker@icann.org> wrote:
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-...
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
participants (6)
-
Alan Greenberg -
Avri Doria -
Nigel Roberts -
Rudolph Daniel -
Stephanie Perrin -
Steve Crocker