- ALAC - lists.icann.org

Re: [ALAC] Analysis of WHOIS AoC RT Recommendations.
by Alan Greenberg Sept. 5, 2012

Sept. 5, 2012

Just a note to say we should be careful about attributing to the "GNSO" or the "GNSO Council" things that are being said by a small subset. The GNSO has not so far replied to the Board request for input. They may or may not do so after their next meeting on Sept. 13. Alan At 05/09/2012 12:54 AM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote: >@ Evan, I am of the understanding that the call for feedback that >Alan was after was specifically for the GNSO lot. [This is not to >stop other SOs, ACs and other constituencies (including cross >constituencies) from implementing or participating in the process. I >am interpreting the GNSO's actions as them taking responsibility of >things that they need to do in order. I noted how the Report >referred to the swiftness with which they undertook certain studies >after GAC made calls for these.] This is not to be interpreted as me >defending GNSO but rather my understanding of the context within >which Alan is making his call for feedback from the ALAC. > >Kind Regards, >Sala > >On Wed, Sep 5, 2012 at 4:44 PM, Evan Leibovitch ><<mailto:evan@telly.org>evan(a)telly.org> wrote: >On 4 September 2012 22:05, Alan Greenberg ><<mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca> wrote: > >The original ALAC statement on the report said we want it all. Period. The > > statement the ALAC made last week said that again, and added that six of > > the Recs are really high priority (in our mind) and that there was no > > reason the Board could not act quickly (and without GNSO creating a line of > > policy). > > > > As a follow-up, it was suggested that we not just address the whether we > > believe that GNSO policy development is needed on the other 10. The > > document addresses that. > > > >Again, I understand this. I am simply offering the opinion that adding the >minutiae at this level weakens our core point that *we want it all*. > >As I said, I am not disagreeing with the work that you have done, along >with Carlton's and Rinalia's additions. I just submit that this research is >more of a followup or appendix to the core statement than part of it. It's >supporting documentation offering suggestions on how to follow our advice, >but it's not the advice itself. I assert that there is a clear distinction >between core advice and its supporting documentation. > >The critical issue is that we (like many others) keep on talking about the > > strength of the multi-stakeholder model. > > > >I can't put words in the mouths of others. When I speak, it's on the >advantages of being multi-stakeholder in general. That said, I am no fan of >the current ICANN implementation which makes following industry advice >mandatory but non-conflicted public interest advice optional. > >Here we are advocating (for the most part) that the Board can ignore the > > bulk of the stakeholders and just act (presumably with a comment period > > first). So we need to make our case that the circumstances reasonably allow > > such direct action. > > > >I guess, then. we have a fundamental difference on what constitutes "the >bulk of stakeholders". In my mind ICANN has largely ignored the bulk of its >stakeholders as long as it has existed. What now exists in the GNSO is a >self-selected group of insiders that resists newcomers (let alone outreach) >and uses its undue influence to sway ICANN in ways that do not serve the >public good. The very fact that we even need to have a "debate" on having >robust WHOIS serves a stark evidence of this reality. > >- Evan >_______________________________________________ >ALAC mailing list ><mailto:ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org>ALAC(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org >https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac > >At-Large Online: <http://www.atlarge.icann.org>http://www.atlarge.icann.org >ALAC Working Wiki: ><https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(AL…>https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(AL… > > > > >-- >Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala >P.O. Box 17862 >Suva >Fiji > >Twitter: @SalanietaT >Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro >Fiji Cell: +679 998 2851 > > >

1 0

Re: [ALAC] Analysis of WHOIS AoC RT Recommendations.
by Alan Greenberg Sept. 5, 2012

Sept. 5, 2012

At 05/09/2012 12:44 AM, Evan Leibovitch wrote: >On 4 September 2012 22:05, Alan Greenberg ><<mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca> wrote: > >The original ALAC statement on the report said we want it all. >Period. The statement the ALAC made last week said that again, and >added that six of the Recs are really high priority (in our mind) >and that there was no reason the Board could not act quickly (and >without GNSO creating a line of policy). > >As a follow-up, it was suggested that we not just address the >whether we believe that GNSO policy development is needed on the >other 10. The document addresses that. > > >Again, I understand this. I am simply offering the opinion that >adding the minutiae at this level weakens our core point that we want it all. > >As I said, I am not disagreeing with the work that you have done, >along with Carlton's and Rinalia's additions. I just submit that >this research is more of a followup or appendix to the core >statement than part of it. It's supporting documentation offering >suggestions on how to follow our advice, but it's not the advice >itself. I assert that there is a clear distinction between core >advice and its supporting documentation. Then what are we differing on? This table was never meant to be more than a supplement to the "advice". That is why in my opening note I suggested that Olivier might just call for an "any objections" instead of submitting this to a formal vote. >The critical issue is that we (like many others) keep on talking >about the strength of the multi-stakeholder model. > > >I can't put words in the mouths of others. When I speak, it's on the >advantages of being multi-stakeholder in general. That said, I am no >fan of the current ICANN implementation which makes following >industry advice mandatory but non-conflicted public interest advice optional. > >Here we are advocating (for the most part) that the Board can ignore >the bulk of the stakeholders and just act (presumably with a comment >period first). So we need to make our case that the circumstances >reasonably allow such direct action. > > >I guess, then. we have a fundamental difference on what constitutes >"the bulk of stakeholders". In my mind ICANN has largely ignored the >bulk of its stakeholders as long as it has existed. What now exists >in the GNSO is a self-selected group of insiders that resists >newcomers (let alone outreach) and uses its undue influence to sway >ICANN in ways that do not serve the public good. The very fact that >we even need to have a "debate" on having robust WHOIS serves a >stark evidence of this reality. We do not basically disagree on this. The structure of the GNSO is not what I believe it should be and I hope it will change (and will work to see it happen. But we have little choice but to work within the Bylaws that we now have. There is a place for that battle (I hope), but for now we are simply trying to get the Board to implement the Whois report as fast the system allows, and our reinforcing that the GNSO does not need to be involved in the bulk of it will hopefully help. When I said "the bulk of the stakeholders" above, that was us as well. We are saying that the Board should act without further community involvement other than a final comment period. We believe that is the correct course of action here. but in some other situation, the Board acting without significant community involvement is exactly the wrong thing to do. That's what got us digital archery. Alan >- Evan

1 0

Re: [ALAC] Analysis of WHOIS AoC RT Recommendations.
by Alan Greenberg Sept. 5, 2012

Sept. 5, 2012

At 04/09/2012 05:59 PM, Evan Leibovitch wrote: >On 4 September 2012 17:29, Alan Greenberg ><<mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca> wrote: >Evan, we are certainly not bound by the politics or practices of the >GNSO, and pointedly, that is why I suggested that a PDP might not >always be necessary in the GNSO giving policy advice to the Board. >But we are bound by the ICANN Bylaws, unless we are explicitly >suggesting that they be changed. And currently the Bylaws do specify >that the GNSO is the body that formulates and recommends GNSO Policy >to the Board. The catch in this case is determining what is >upper-case-P gTLD policy, and what is not. And we are making the >case that with one exception, the initial implementation of the >recommendations are NOT upper-case-P gTLD policy. > > >I hear you. But that's a level of detail one step down from the core >message, which (AFAIK) is not yet agreed to. > >We need full buy-in on the "what" (WHOIS fixing is an immediate >priority) before dealing with "how" (many of the RT things can be >done by staff without re-consulting the GNSO). >If the Board is not in agreement that this is a priority to fix >quickly, it will punt the recommendations to the GNSO, including the >ones it doesn't need to. > >Even agreeing that certain matters are pure implementation that can >be done by staff is not assurance of anything, as we have seen >through the current sad state of contractual compliance. So it is >important that we get across as our main point -- as forcefully as >possible -- that the status quo is unacceptable. How ICANN addresses >that problem (assuming it agrees), while important, is secondary. >What point is arguing details if we don't have buy-in on the principle? > >Perhaps my cynicism (that the Board lacks our concern about the >broken state of WHOIS implementation and enforcement) is >unwarranted. I certainly hope so. > >- Evan We seem to be talking at cross-purposes. The original ALAC statement on the report said we want it all. Period. The statement the ALAC made last week said that again, and added that six of the Recs are really high priority (in our mind) and that there was no reason the Board could not act quickly (and without GNSO creating a line of policy). As a follow-up, it was suggested that we not just address the whether we believe that GNSO policy development is needed on the other 10. The document addresses that. The Board has little wriggle room on whether to address all of the Recs. In the next A&T review, they will be judged on it and they better have a rock-solid rationale for rejecting any of the Recs. What they do have is flexibility on how they are to address the Recs and our point is that for most of them, they need not and cannot shove them off on the GNSO before doing anything. I.E. No punting in most cases. Or at least, that is how I see it. The critical issue is that we (like many others) keep on talking about the strength of the multi-stakeholder model. Here we are advocating (for the most part) that the Board can ignore the bulk of the stakeholders and just act (presumably with a comment period first). So we need to make our case that the circumstances reasonably allow such direct action. Alan

3 2

Re: [ALAC] Analysis of WHOIS AoC RT Recommendations.
by Alan Greenberg Sept. 5, 2012

Sept. 5, 2012

For clarity, I am just extracting the parts that I am replying to. At 04/09/2012 06:35 PM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote: >>Recommendation1: To make Whois a Strategic Priority >>The commissioning of the Review by ICANN is an indication of the >>strategic importance and manner in which the Review Team was >>constituted. However, ICANN needs to monitor and evaluate the >>implementation process. As far as the GNSO is concerned they have >>following advice from the GAC undertaken to do four studies namely >>the Whois Misuse Study; Whois Proxy and Privacy Abuse; Whois >>Registrant Identification and Whois Proxy & Privacy Relay and >>Reveal Study which the Report says is due for completion in 2012. I >>am not sure what the status of the Studies are but I can only >>hypothesize that to the extent that this would affect existing >>consensus Policies, then parts of the PDP may apply. However, if >>the existing consensus policies address in principle areas that may >>require a PDP process then we should be open to that. I understand >>that this may be a negligible caveat. > >It is correct that addressing the substantive Whois issues may well >require (well, almost surely require) GNSO policy development, that >is not the subject of this Rec. It is solely that the ICANN go on >records as saying it is important and conveying that message out to >the GNSO as well as other parts of the wider ICANN community. > >By the way, do you know when in 2012 the studies are due to be >completed. I would be most interested in reading the Reports. Don't off-hand know. Would have to do some research first. >>Recommendation 9 Data Accuracy: Track Impact of Whois Data Reminder >>Policy and Possible Replacement >> >>The Report clearly outlines the fact that the Whois Data Reminder >>Policy so without a doubt there is need to review and revise the >>Policy. I would say, yes GNSO much initiate discussions. To save >>time there may be things within the Reminder Policy that do not >>need to be debated again although there is always the exception. >>There are many models of doing things and Registrars can select >>what works for them and it would help to at least outline a few >>generic ones. At the moment, I can deduce that the focus has been >>based on the actual "data" and if one methodology does'nt work, >>there should be enough innovation to suggest alternative methods >>that can be either customer centric or otherwise. > >The current WDRP is a Consensus Policy and as such must be adhered >to by registrars. The report suggest that we first try to develop >metrics to gauge's its effectiveness. If that is not possible, or >implicitly if the metrics say it is not effective, a new policy >shouldbe developed. > >This Report very bluntly mentions the failure of the WDRP. In terms >of metrics, I would have thought that the NORC study would have >teased these out already. The NORC study is looking at Whois accuracy, not how it changes over time with respect to WDRP. These days, we try to make sure that when a new policy is implemented, we can get some metrics to track it (not always possible of course). When the WDRP was put in place, we had no such concept. So registrars send out the notices and registrants get them, but we do not know how many registrants adjust their Whois info in response to the reminder. That is the thrust of the recommendation. Alan

2 1

Re: [ALAC] Analysis of WHOIS AoC RT Recommendations.
by Alan Greenberg Sept. 4, 2012

Sept. 4, 2012

Sala, my comments below. At 04/09/2012 02:34 PM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote: >Dear Alan, and fellow ALAC, > >I find that the fact that the controversy within the GNSO where they >questioned your standing as improper. Since this is the second >incident at least that I have become aware of, I would suggest that >the ALAC Chair has a chat with the GNSO Chair to raise our concerns. >My view is that ALAC liaisons represent the ALAC and act as a bridge >and to insult Alan is to insult us all. This can be done >diplomatically of course. As promised, I found the time, lost a few >hours but all for a good cause... >[] > Well I am off to breakfast...got something else due today. Although at times individuals have questions whether I am properly representing the ALAC, that has not happened in regard to this topic, and it has never happened at a formal GNSO level, always by individuals. >After reading the Whois Report (92 pages) [referred to as "Report" >in my comments] and your assessment of which recommendations do not >require any prior Policy development. These are my comments in >response to your call for feedback. > >Recommendation1: To make Whois a Strategic Priority >The commissioning of the Review by ICANN is an indication of the >strategic importance and manner in which the Review Team was >constituted. However, ICANN needs to monitor and evaluate the >implementation process. As far as the GNSO is concerned they have >following advice from the GAC undertaken to do four studies namely >the Whois Misuse Study; Whois Proxy and Privacy Abuse; Whois >Registrant Identification and Whois Proxy & Privacy Relay and Reveal >Study which the Report says is due for completion in 2012. I am not >sure what the status of the Studies are but I can only hypothesize >that to the extent that this would affect existing consensus >Policies, then parts of the PDP may apply. However, if the existing >consensus policies address in principle areas that may require a PDP >process then we should be open to that. I understand that this may >be a negligible caveat. It is correct that addressing the substantive Whois issues may well require (well, almost surely require) GNSO policy development, that is not the subject of this Rec. It is solely that the ICANN go on records as saying it is important and conveying that message out to the GNSO as well as other parts of the wider ICANN community. >Recommendation 2 Single Whois Policy >I agree with your assessment. The Report mentions that there is a >current gTLD Policy as set out in the gTLD Registry and Registrar >contracts and GNSP Consensus Policies and Procedures. So there is no >need for the PDP to be initiated. > >Recommendation 3 Outreach > >I agree with your assessment that there is no need for a gNSO Policy >development. Whilst there may not be need for a gNSO Policy for >Outreach the Report does identify the need to move beyond the >confines of the ICANN community to involve them. Although I read the >report, I did not read the Appendix and note that in terms of >studies done on consumers from 8-10 countries, it was unclear from >the report which countries were selected and it would have been good >to have it footnoted like the rest of the other stuff. Consumer >groups like Consumer International etc. I found it interesting given >the wake of the Ottawa Principles by the OECD countries on taxation >that they did not make submissions given that they have a stake in >it as well. It is possible that they made submissions and I missed it. > >Recommendation 4 Compliance > >I agree with your assessment that there is no need for a GNSO Policy >to be initiated. My view is that there only needs to be self >regulatory measures put in place by Registrars and I commend the >CINC for reporting 97% accuracy levels. My view is that there needs >to be gold stars >[] >[] > handed out by ICANN to Registrars and Resellers who comply. This > can be published and verified independently on the ICANN > website.There can also be incentives such as if you don't meet > acceptable compliance levels and don't have clear plans that meet > ICANN's satisfaction, please don't bother applying for a gTLD. I > would also hasten to endorse the findings within the Report to > review and improve all relevant compliance tools and create new > ones where necessary before the gTLDs are assigned and become > operational. Who knows maybe this lag time of waiting can be put to good use. > >Recommendation 5 Data Accuracy [Communicate Need] >The outcomes of the Studies currently being undertaken by the GNSO >coupled with the NORC Study will definitely form the empirical basis >necessary for further policy development in this area both by the >GNSO and also by ICANN. Data Accuracy is critical in order to >navigate through the Internet with ease. To a large extent, this is >self regulatory and with countries all around the world creating >Strategies to secure their Cyber Environment, it is only a matter of >time before it is legislated. To avoid external regulations forcing >data accuracy it is much more easier and productive to ensure that >there is data accuracy. It is of great concern that the NORC Report >shows a 23% no failure rate and 20% full failure and I wonder about >the 57%. I think Data Accuracy is all our responsibility and not >just Registrars but a collective corporate responsibility issue. I >agree with the suggestion by the Business Community (see page 85 of >the Report) that the RAA should be amended to make it mandatory for >contracted parties to verify WHOIS information when registration >occurs and when domain names are renewed. I would add though that is >and when there are planned transitions where there are cut off dates >for renewing and updating their information that this can also be >worded into the RAA to enable Registrars to have sufficient room to >issue notices of that nature. For this to work, it will require a >Policy and yes either from the GNSO or ICANN so that this can be >referred to in the contractual arrangements. > >Recommendation 6 Data Accuracy: >I would say that there is a need for the GNSO to create a PDP to >ensure that there is Data Accuracy. To a large extent compliance in >relation to data accuracy has been self regulatory and dependent on >the Registrars. Were this to be taken away and (best case scenario: >ICANN Compliance; worst case scenario: legislated) it would mean >transition to increasing accuracy, voluntary or otherwise would be >enforced. It follows that as per the recommendation in report (see >page 87 para 11], "ICANN should take appropriate measures to reduce >the number of WHOIS registrations that fall into the accuracy groups >Substantial Failure and Full Failure (as defined by the NORC Data >Accuracy Study, 2009/10) by 50% within 12 months and by 50% again >over the following 12 months", it is far more beneficial and useful >to manage this process internally. The registrars and registries have taken the position "that the recommendation to undertake "appropriate measures" to reduce the number of WHOIS registrations that fall into these accuracy groups may require a PDP depending on what these measures are." I would not advocate taking a stronger position that a PDP is definitely needed. >Recommendation 7 Measure and Report Whois Accuracy >My comments remain the same as for Recommendation 6 The RySG and RrSG are apparently so far not worried about this one. >Recommendation 8 Ensure that Compliance has tools to enforce Whois > >There was a comment made by the Commercial Stakeholders Group in >Singapore where they raised and in my view correctly the fact that >private regulations are based on the ability to self regulate and >enforce contractual obligations. There has been much debate and >discussion in relation to strengthening the Compliance Team and >giving them tools. My personal view is that all you need is a MS >Excel spreadsheet, a phone, a clear tangible strategy for various >regions in the world and they have more than enough tools necessary >to get the job done. In simple speak, if they can't enforce >compliance change the team. It is not an extraordinarily complex >thing to enforce contracts. I am also not sure whether you need a >policy for this. Do we need a policy to show us how to clean our >kitchen? Incremental sanctions that are mentioned in page 68 of the >Report are relevant. [Please excuse the sarcasm, it's the lack of >sleep talking] Yes whilst I agree that the stick approach which is >de-registration and de-accreditation, I personally feel that even >without these additional revisions and provisions expressly woven >into the contract by virtue of ICANN issuing a Notice to all >Registrars to update their records is the equivalent of a legal >notice as "someone" who is assigning names and numbers. > >Recommendation 9 Data Accuracy: Track Impact of Whois Data Reminder >Policy and Possible Replacement > >The Report clearly outlines the fact that the Whois Data Reminder >Policy so without a doubt there is need to review and revise the >Policy. I would say, yes GNSO much initiate discussions. To save >time there may be things within the Reminder Policy that do not need >to be debated again although there is always the exception. There >are many models of doing things and Registrars can select what works >for them and it would help to at least outline a few generic ones. >At the moment, I can deduce that the focus has been based on the >actual "data" and if one methodology does'nt work, there should be >enough innovation to suggest alternative methods that can be either >customer centric or otherwise. The current WDRP is a Consensus Policy and as such must be adhered to by registrars. The report suggest that we first try to develop metrics to gauge's its effectiveness. If that is not possible, or implicitly if the metrics say it is not effective, a new policy shouldbe developed. >Recommendation 10 Data Access, Privacy and Proxy Services > >There is much discussion and debate around the area and I would that >a Draft Policy should be created by the GNSO modelled around the >findings Council of European National TLD Registries as a starting >point for policy discussion. > >Recommendation 11 Internic >I think that this should be factored into the Strategy for >Transition. I am not sure whose responsibility this is whether this >is ICANN's or the GNSO or the entire community. It is purely an internal ICANN issue,of course with whatever input they solicit or is contributed. Alan >Recommendations 12-14 IDNs > >It would be good to get some feedback on current work being done >within the IETF on whether the Whois Protocol has been revised or >modified. I have noted the comments that the Whois Protocol has no >support for non-ASCII characters (see page 91) and also note the >Review Team's comments that the failure to maintain registration >data is not attributed to the failure of IDNs but just management of >registration data. > >Recommendation 15 Detailed and Comprehensive Plan > >I gather that ICANN has yet to produce this Detailed and >Comprehensive Plan. I do not think that PDP is needed. However, I >could be wrong. I would suggest that in the event that ICANN has yet >to draft one, why don't we initiate drafting this plan and handing >it to the community. Should'nt take more than a week to produce a >first draft. All the materials and resources needed are available already. > >Recommendation 16 Annual Report >The recommendation within the report is too ambigious and perhaps it >was meant to be that way so that it is broad and you can include >anything you like. The downside is that if you don't spell out what >you want precisely, you can also get nothing. So there's a question >of balance. > >On Mon, Sep 3, 2012 at 1:24 PM, Alan Greenberg ><<mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca> wrote: >You will recall that at its last meeting, the ALAC unanimously >approved a statement to the Board reiterating its position that all >16 recommendations be implemented, and stressed that several were >very important and clearly did not require any prior GNSO policy >development. That ALAC statement can be found at ><http://tinyurl.com/ALAC-WHOIS-Advice>http://tinyurl.com/ALAC-WHOIS-Advice. > >Based on further discussions, and in light of a controversy that has >arisen in the GNSO, it was suggested that the ALAC explicitly >identify which recommendations do not require any prior policy >development, and which might required GNSO policy development. > >I had already done a brief review looking at which recommendations >might require policy development. I have since revised this and >present it to you here. > >In summary, of the 16 recommendations, 12 do not require GNSO policy >development, 3 *might* require policy development, but that would >depend on work carried out over the coming months and years, and 1 >does require policy development by the GNSO along with the rest of >the community, but in my opinion, does not require a formal PDP. > >The detailed analysis is attached. The report with the >recommendations in detail can be found at ><http://www.icann.org/en/about/aoc-review/whois/final-report-11may12-en.pdf>http://www.icann.org/en/about/aoc-review/whois/final-report-11may12-en.pdf. > >It is essential that this analysis reach the Board before the Board >Workshop scheduled for September 12-13. > >I am not sure if Olivier wants to hold a formal vote on this, or for >the ALAC to just reach consensus, but regardless, the first step if >for anyone who does not agree with this analysis to speak up. > >Alan > >_______________________________________________ >ALAC mailing list ><mailto:ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org>ALAC(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org >https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac > >At-Large Online: <http://www.atlarge.icann.org>http://www.atlarge.icann.org >ALAC Working Wiki: ><https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(AL…>https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(AL… > > > > >-- >Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala >P.O. Box 17862 >Suva >Fiji > >Twitter: @SalanietaT >Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro >Fiji Cell: +679 998 2851 > > > > >Content-Type: image/gif; name="1E3.gif" >X-Attachment-Id: 1E3(a)goomoji.gmail >Content-ID: <1E3(a)goomoji.gmail> > >Content-Type: image/gif; name="B68.gif" >X-Attachment-Id: B68(a)goomoji.gmail >Content-ID: <B68(a)goomoji.gmail> >

2 1

Re: [ALAC] Analysis of WHOIS AoC RT Recommendations.
by Alan Greenberg Sept. 4, 2012

Sept. 4, 2012

Evan, we are certainly not bound by the politics or practices of the GNSO, and pointedly, that is why I suggested that a PDP might not always be necessary in the GNSO giving policy advice to the Board. But we are bound by the ICANN Bylaws, unless we are explicitly suggesting that they be changed. And currently the Bylaws do specify that the GNSO is the body that formulates and recommends GNSO Policy to the Board. The catch in this case is determining what is upper-case-P gTLD policy, and what is not. And we are making the case that with one exception, the initial implementation of the recommendations are NOT upper-case-P gTLD policy. Alan At 04/09/2012 03:57 PM, Evan Leibovitch wrote: >Hi all, > >Apologies for having been generally away from ICANN issues for the >last week or so. I'm now catching up on my mail backlog. > >I'm in broad agreement with Carlton and Rinalia in their assessments >and thank both them and Alan for helping to form this. > > From a different perspective I am annoyed -- bordering on taking > offence -- that At-Large expression of the public interest is > expected to consider (and maybe even partially defer to!) the > internal workings of ICANN's GNSO when giving its advice to the > ICANN Board. We are bound neither in scope nor reporting process by > the limitations of the GNSO, and we ought not to be bound by its > constraints or internal politics. > >The establishment and enforcement of a robust and accurate WHOIS >mechanism, as a tool of basic registrant and industry >accountability, is an ICANN public interest priority. That is our >core message. The rest is detail. > >By all means we have a duty to welcome (and indeed assert our) >participation in community-wide low-level policy development. >However, IMO it is not our task to slice and dice what solutions can >be implemented by staff and which get punted back to ICANN's >industry-captured formal policy making process. We must remind >ourselves that this same "community" has tolerated (and on the >balance can be said to defend) the status quo of lax regulations >that are themselves ineptly enforced. This is the inertia against >which we must act. > >We have a duty to tell the ICANN Board and community (and by that I >mean a community that is not just the industry and its partners in opaqueness): >a) That this issue is important, indeed critical >b) That we are willing to work with the internal community in >good-faith attempts to address the minutiae required to address >deficiencies in ICANN's public service > >I believe that what Alan has presented, and that which Carlton and >Rinalia have comment upon, helps address the low level details of >the problems. But let us also not lose sight of the need to give a >clear and simple high-level message to the Board (and our public) >that is unbound by the limitations of such work. > >Being an Advisory Committee and not a Supporting Organization gives >us a different role in ICANN, and a slightly different path. We are >already saddled with the deficiencies of the differences (ie, our >advice is not binding) so we might as well take capitalize on the >advantages (less constrained processes and a direct channel to the Baord). > >- Evan

2 1

Re: [ALAC] Analysis of WHOIS AoC RT Recommendations.
by Alan Greenberg Sept. 4, 2012

Sept. 4, 2012

At 03/09/2012 08:11 PM, Rinalia Abdul Rahim wrote: >Dear Alan, > >As per my vote on the ALAC statement, I supported the call for the >Board to take effective and expedient action on the entire set of >recommendations generated by the WHOIS Policy Review Team. I have >no objections to the proposed policy analysis, which I know to be >based on your very extensive experience with the GNSO, but I do >suggest the following clarification tweaks for your consideration. > >Unilateral Action By the Board >In the same statement, the ALAC highlighted several recommendations >that it believed the Board should/can take action on unilaterally >without resorting to the GNSO policy processes (formal or otherwise). >To ensure that there is no misunderstanding with the analysis that >you are proposing, I suggest a third column with the header >"Unilateral Board Action Required" so that this point is reiterated >and not forgotten given that it is a crucial point. >The point that Carlton makes about the role of the board in >policy-making and decision-making is not something that can/should >be addressed in depth at the level of policy analysis >here. Nevertheless, the contention is important and the presence of >the suggested third column serves as a prelude to a future >intervention that the ALAC will presumably make over that issue >(should it wish to do so and after extensive internal debate, of course). Perhaps I am missing some issue, but how I don't understand how a "No" in the present second column (well, 2nd other than the sequence numbers) be different from a "Yes" in the next column. If the Board need not go to the group to which is has delegated gTLD policy formulation, who else is there but the Board to act? BTW, I used the term "unilateral" to some extent to wave a red flag in the face of the Board reminding them that they do have they do have authority to manage ICANN. That is technically correct. However, in the name of openness and the multi-stakeholder model, the Board will virtually always go out for public comment prior to taking any substantive action of the sort we are talking about here. And if that comment was overwhelmingly negative, they would be hard-pressed to proceed. So I would not recommend that we use the term again. > > >Types of Policy Action (under "GNSO Policy Required?") >Thank you for providing the clarification between a formal PDP and >other types of GNSO policy development. >For clarity, because the PDP has a specific contextual meaning, I >suggest that you start each elaboration with either a "YES (PDP)" >or "YES - Non-PDP" or "NO" and then elaborate. Currently, for some >of your elaboration, the "Yes" or "No" is at the bottom. >In cases where the action is contextual, rather than saying >"perhaps", which flusters some people and fuel ambiguity, do go for >the more definitive "YES if ..." or "NO if ...." As I pointed out, my description of what requires a PDP and what does not is not universally held. As a result of answering your previous question, my inclination is to go in the opposite direction to the one you suggest, and not make a very strong point of the belief that no PDP is needed. I would not want our overall evaluation to be passed over because of the form that the policy work will take (something that ultimately the Board has virtually no control over). Alan >Best regards, > >Rinalia > >On Mon, Sep 3, 2012 at 9:24 AM, Alan Greenberg ><<mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca> wrote: >You will recall that at its last meeting, the ALAC unanimously >approved a statement to the Board reiterating its position that all >16 recommendations be implemented, and stressed that several were >very important and clearly did not require any prior GNSO policy >development. That ALAC statement can be found at ><http://tinyurl.com/ALAC-WHOIS-Advice>http://tinyurl.com/ALAC-WHOIS-Advice. > >Based on further discussions, and in light of a controversy that has >arisen in the GNSO, it was suggested that the ALAC explicitly >identify which recommendations do not require any prior policy >development, and which might required GNSO policy development. > >I had already done a brief review looking at which recommendations >might require policy development. I have since revised this and >present it to you here. > >In summary, of the 16 recommendations, 12 do not require GNSO policy >development, 3 *might* require policy development, but that would >depend on work carried out over the coming months and years, and 1 >does require policy development by the GNSO along with the rest of >the community, but in my opinion, does not require a formal PDP. > >The detailed analysis is attached. The report with the >recommendations in detail can be found at ><http://www.icann.org/en/about/aoc-review/whois/final-report-11may12-en.pdf>http://www.icann.org/en/about/aoc-review/whois/final-report-11may12-en.pdf. > >It is essential that this analysis reach the Board before the Board >Workshop scheduled for September 12-13. > >I am not sure if Olivier wants to hold a formal vote on this, or for >the ALAC to just reach consensus, but regardless, the first step if >for anyone who does not agree with this analysis to speak up. > >Alan > >_______________________________________________ >ALAC mailing list ><mailto:ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org>ALAC(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org >https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac > >At-Large Online: <http://www.atlarge.icann.org>http://www.atlarge.icann.org >ALAC Working Wiki: ><https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(AL…>https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(AL… >

3 2

Analysis of WHOIS AoC RT Recommendations.
by Alan Greenberg Sept. 4, 2012

Sept. 4, 2012

You will recall that at its last meeting, the ALAC unanimously approved a statement to the Board reiterating its position that all 16 recommendations be implemented, and stressed that several were very important and clearly did not require any prior GNSO policy development. That ALAC statement can be found at http://tinyurl.com/ALAC-WHOIS-Advice. Based on further discussions, and in light of a controversy that has arisen in the GNSO, it was suggested that the ALAC explicitly identify which recommendations do not require any prior policy development, and which might required GNSO policy development. I had already done a brief review looking at which recommendations might require policy development. I have since revised this and present it to you here. In summary, of the 16 recommendations, 12 do not require GNSO policy development, 3 *might* require policy development, but that would depend on work carried out over the coming months and years, and 1 does require policy development by the GNSO along with the rest of the community, but in my opinion, does not require a formal PDP. The detailed analysis is attached. The report with the recommendations in detail can be found at http://www.icann.org/en/about/aoc-review/whois/final-report-11may12-en.pdf. It is essential that this analysis reach the Board before the Board Workshop scheduled for September 12-13. I am not sure if Olivier wants to hold a formal vote on this, or for the ALAC to just reach consensus, but regardless, the first step if for anyone who does not agree with this analysis to speak up. Alan

5 6

Re: [ALAC] Analysis of WHOIS AoC RT Recommendations.
by Alan Greenberg Sept. 3, 2012

Sept. 3, 2012

Hi Holly, thanks for this. Although I don't disagree with the substance of what you say, I am afraid that it is a bit late (or a bit early) to be saying it. The current statement under discussion is solely identifying the recommendations what do or do not, in the opinion of ALAC, require GNSO policy development prior to Board action. Part of what you suggest was implicitly in the statement the ALAC approved during its teleconference last week. Perhaps that statement could have included more details, but the feeling at the time was that it needed to be short and to the point. I am sure that there will be additional opportunities to comment (or we could use our prerogative of speaking to the Board at any time) and these ideas should be fully fleshed out and made as appropriate. Alan At 03/09/2012 12:50 AM, Holly Raiche wrote: >Hi Alan > >First of all, thanks for the time you have spent on this. I would >support an ALAC response going to the Board on implementation of the >Final Final Whois report - but I'd use the occasion for a very >strong ALAC response. There are details in the text of the >recommendations that go further than the recommendations (and your >table) suggest, and we should spell them out and urge their >implementation ASAP. > >For example: >under Recommendation One, the suggestions that we support include: >- establishment of a high level Committee, with the CEO at the head, >to oversee the implementation of the recommendations >- encouragement of the adoption of at least test beds for >appropriate protocols (we should acknowledge that some technical >work is already being done) > >Under Recommendation 3 - Outreach, specific constituencies are >mentioned - going out to, apart from trade marks, privacy groups, >other stakeholders. We should say that many of the relevant >stakeholders listed are within the ALSs and we can provide/assist in >that outreach > >Under Recommendation 4 - Compliance recommendations include: >- transparency of resourcing and structure >- open reporting and accountability - overseen by the high level committee >- adequate resourcing = noting that it has been understaffed and >under resourced and has struggled for organisational priority >- need for follow up on the NORC report on data accuracy - >particularly support for the adoption of the suggested target of a >reduction by 50% within 12 months of the reduction in inaccurate >Whois data (either substantially or wholly inaccurate using the NORC >tests) - and a further reduction by 50% in a further 12 months >- publication of data accuracy reports >(Garth has a lot of rather frightening material on compliance issues >and we should say that Compliance must become a high priority) > >Under Recommendation 11 Internic >This is about the possibility of Internic as involved in a more >accessible Whois. Maybe here, we repeat our concern that the .com >agreement did not contain a requirement for a thick Whois > >In summary, Recommendation 14 for a Detailed and Comprehensive Plan >must include all the elements of the Final Final Report's >recommendations that can be implemented without a PDP. > >Finally, we should acknowledge that some work is being done now, >including the technical stuff, and the RAA negotiations (that should >hopefully, address some of the RAA issues). And we should >acknowledge that there are some matters that will need to be >addressed through a PDP - specifically, for example, the problems >ALAC identified in clause 3.7.8 and the difficulty it raises in >compliance. But as much as possible should be done ASAP. > >Holly > > > >On 03/09/2012, at 11:24 AM, Alan Greenberg wrote: > > > You will recall that at its last meeting, the ALAC unanimously > approved a statement to the Board reiterating its position that all > 16 recommendations be implemented, and stressed that several were > very important and clearly did not require any prior GNSO policy > development. That ALAC statement can be found at > http://tinyurl.com/ALAC-WHOIS-Advice. > > > > Based on further discussions, and in light of a controversy that > has arisen in the GNSO, it was suggested that the ALAC explicitly > identify which recommendations do not require any prior policy > development, and which might required GNSO policy development. > > > > I had already done a brief review looking at which > recommendations might require policy development. I have since > revised this and present it to you here. > > > > In summary, of the 16 recommendations, 12 do not require GNSO > policy development, 3 *might* require policy development, but that > would depend on work carried out over the coming months and years, > and 1 does require policy development by the GNSO along with the > rest of the community, but in my opinion, does not require a formal PDP. > > > > The detailed analysis is attached. The report with the > recommendations in detail can be found at > http://www.icann.org/en/about/aoc-review/whois/final-report-11may12-en.pdf. > > > > It is essential that this analysis reach the Board before the > Board Workshop scheduled for September 12-13. > > > > I am not sure if Olivier wants to hold a formal vote on this, or > for the ALAC to just reach consensus, but regardless, the first > step if for anyone who does not agree with this analysis to speak up. > > > > Alan > > <Recs-PolicyAnalysis.pdf>_______________________________________________ > > ALAC mailing list > > ALAC(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > > https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac > > > > At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org > > ALAC Working Wiki: > https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(AL…

1 0

Re: [ALAC] Analysis of WHOIS AoC RT Recommendations.
by Alan Greenberg Sept. 3, 2012

Sept. 3, 2012

Carlton, a few thoughts below. At 03/09/2012 01:20 PM, Carlton Samuels wrote: >Dear Alan: >I have re-read your analysis and my position remains immutable. > >For the record, I took a primer on the GNSO policy development >process in preparation for co-chairing the Applicant Support WG. I >have also paid keen attention to your tutorial given long before now >on the workings of the GNSO and reprised by request in this thread. > >My understanding of that process is largely harmonized with yours >with a small exception. In my view, policy development in GNSO >should, of right, provide space for inclusion of the rest of the >community, hence the requirement for a formal PDP. It is only in exceeding rare situation where the rest of the community is excluded from GNSO activities. It is sad but true that generally they do not avail themselves of this right. The only case in recent history where we were limited in participation was the STI, and ALL GNSO G and Cons were similarly limited, all in the interest of balanced representation and a sufficiently small group as to meet the tight time deadline. It was sufficiently successful that *perhaps* it should be used as a model for other efforts, but to date it has not. >Regardless of that difference, I support the outcomes of your >analysis. And I urge my colleagues to ratify these and request the >ALAC Chair proceed to communicate our concerns in both detail and >with the appropriate level of alarm. > >To me the principle is not conroversial. This idea that the ICANN >Board may only adopt a policy perspective handed to them by the GNSO >must be rejected. For to give this credence is to accept that the >GNSO tail wags the ICANN Board's dog. And that corporate governance >model would be altogether exceptional, counterintuitive and >dangerous. Even for a California corporation albeit dedicated to a >multistakeholder model of policy development in the global public interest! I'd be careful about this. The GNSO has the Bylaw mandated role to "be responsible for developing and recommending to the ICANN Board substantive policies relating to generic top-level domains". To say that the Board has the right to create policy on its own, and without the involvement of ICANN stakeholders, is giving the Board just a bit too much power in my mind, and is counter to the MS-model. The Board DOES explicitly have the power to adopt policy on an interim basis in exceptional circumstances, but must then rely of on the GNSO to craft a more permanent solution. >This idea of an all-knowing priesthood (the GNSO) claiming this >special unitary and exclusive relationship which informs its >exceptional supplications on behalf of us mere mortals is offensive to reason. The current GNSO Council model is explicitly not an all-knowing priesthood. It is mandated with managing or overseeing the policy development process which by necessity involves the entire GNSO (equivalent to the overall At-large). Alan >- Carlton > >============================== >Carlton A Samuels >Mobile: 876-818-1799 >Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround >============================= > > >On Sun, Sep 2, 2012 at 8:24 PM, Alan Greenberg ><<mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca> wrote: >You will recall that at its last meeting, the ALAC unanimously >approved a statement to the Board reiterating its position that all >16 recommendations be implemented, and stressed that several were >very important and clearly did not require any prior GNSO policy >development. That ALAC statement can be found at ><http://tinyurl.com/ALAC-WHOIS-Advice>http://tinyurl.com/ALAC-WHOIS-Advice. >Based on further discussions, and in light of a controversy that has >arisen in the GNSO, it was suggested that the ALAC explicitly >identify which recommendations do not require any prior policy >development, and which might required GNSO policy development. >I had already done a brief review looking at which recommendations >might require policy development. I have since revised this and >present it to you here. >In summary, of the 16 recommendations, 12 do not require GNSO policy >development, 3 *might* require policy development, but that would >depend on work carried out over the coming months and years, and 1 >does require policy development by the GNSO along with the rest of >the community, but in my opinion, does not require a formal PDP. >The detailed analysis is attached. The report with the >recommendations in detail can be found at ><http://www.icann.org/en/about/aoc-review/whois/final-report-11may12-en.pdf>http://www.icann.org/en/about/aoc-review/whois/final-report-11may12-en.pdf. >It is essential that this analysis reach the Board before the Board >Workshop scheduled for September 12-13. >I am not sure if Olivier wants to hold a formal vote on this, or for >the ALAC to just reach consensus, but regardless, the first step if >for anyone who does not agree with this analysis to speak up. >Alan >_______________________________________________ >ALAC mailing list ><mailto:ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org>ALAC(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org >https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac >At-Large Online: <http://www.atlarge.icann.org>http://www.atlarge.icann.org >ALAC Working Wiki: ><https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(AL…>https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(AL…

1 0