Dear Alan, Thank you for your email. I acknowledge receipt of your email. However, I have briefly read its contents but have yet to visit the detailed analysis. I advise that I am occupied at the moment with meeting a deadlines for paid work and will make time as soon as I have sufficient bandwidth to go over the material and reflect before replying. Noting, that the ALAC has time till before the Board meets on the 12th and 13th of September, 2012. Kind Regards, Sala On Mon, Sep 3, 2012 at 1:24 PM, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@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 ALAC@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+(ALA...)

-- Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala P.O. Box 17862 Suva Fiji Twitter: @SalanietaT Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro Fiji Cell: +679 998 2851

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. 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! 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. - Carlton ============================== Carlton A Samuels Mobile: 876-818-1799 *Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround* ============================= On Sun, Sep 2, 2012 at 8:24 PM, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@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 ALAC@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+(ALA...)

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. 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. *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. *Recommendation 7 Measure and Report Whois Accuracy* My comments remain the same as for Recommendation 6 *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. *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. *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 <alan.greenberg@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 ALAC@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+(ALA...)

-- Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala P.O. Box 17862 Suva Fiji Twitter: @SalanietaT Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro Fiji Cell: +679 998 2851