Next steps for the Whois Accuracy Implementation Advisory Group
Dear Councilors, During our April meeting<https://icann.zoom.us/rec/play/m7OxKCA5oQ9K_waOhDVno3cyrjdqXBktXf0uHaIGJT6I2...>, we discussed potential next steps for the Whois Accuracy Implementation Advisory Group. Background and potential options are below (the meeting recording<https://icann.zoom.us/rec/play/B88W5Be-pDdOMPBXvuhFOa3rbb00kxbNYyjHRGk-meJ7e...> includes additional). Please discuss with your SGs and provide feedback by Friday, 2 May. What is this procedure? ICANN's Procedure For Handling Registration Data Directory Services Conflicts with Privacy Law<https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/rdds-conflicts-procedure-2024-02-21-en> is a procedure that allows Contracted Parties to demonstrate when they are prevented by local laws from fully complying with the provisions of ICANN contracts regarding personal data in RDDS. After receiving a recommendation from the 2003 Whois Task Force, the GNSO launched a PDP on this topic in 2005, and ICANN org implemented a procedure in 2006. The procedure was updated in 2017 to include an alternative trigger. Why is the Council considering this now? Following the addition of the new alternative trigger to the procedure in 2017, the GNSO Council was set to review the procedure by launching a PDP. However, because the EPDP on the Temporary Specification was engaged in parallel work, the GNSO Council decided to pause the call for volunteers until the EPDP Team delivered its report. Following the publication of the Final Report, ICANN org and Contracted Parties agreed to prioritize their work on the Data Processing Specification prior to revisiting the Conflicts Procedure. ICANN org published the Data Processing Specification<https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/data-processing-specification-requests...> (DPS) in January 2025. Now that the DPS is complete, the Council is considering if/how it should proceed on reviewing the Conflicts Procedure. Questions to consider? As discussed during the Council meeting and brought up councilors, some of the factors to consider in determining how to proceed include: * Do Contracted Parties (the parties who would use the procedure) believe this is an urgent need as no Contracted Parties have used the procedure in years? * Does the new Registration Data Policy, which becomes effective in August, obviate the need for a modification to the procedure? * Does the Council believe this should be a priority, which would require other work to be de-prioritized? Potential Options 1. Defer/Leave procedure as is * If Councilors (particularly Contracted Parties) do not believe this procedure needs an urgent modification, further work could be: * Deferred indefinitely until the Community communicates a need to review (in other words, leave the procedure alone until the Community informs Council it needs to be reviewed.) * Deferred for a finite amount of time (1 year, 2 years, etc.) to revisit if updates may be needed 2. Proceed with original plan - ICANN org to draft modification in consultation with CPs * If Councilors (particularly Contracted Parties) believe this work is urgent and important, the Council could request ICANN org to draft a modification to the procedure in consultation with Contracted Parties before sharing with the Council. (As noted above, due to resource constraints, the Council would need to determine what work can be de-prioritized in order to prioritize this work.) 3. Terminate/Retire procedure * During the meeting, some councilors noted it may be worth terminating/retiring this procedure due to flaws. It is important to note that the termination/retirement of the procedure would require further policy work as this procedure is the product of GNSO policy recommendations. If the Council does not want to extend resources on this procedure at this time, it may be worth exploring Option 1. Deadline for Feedback? Please socialize with your respective SG/Cs and let the Council know how you think it should proceed by Friday, 2 May. Thanks, Greg
Hi Councilors, The RrSG would like to defer indefinitely (see option 1 below). There may be a scenario that arises in which this procedure is needed, and we can revisit at that time, but at the moment, registrars do not believe this work constitutes a productive use of our resources. Thanks, Greg From: DiBiase, Gregory via council <council@icann.org> Sent: Monday, April 21, 2025 9:28 AM To: Council@icann.org Subject: [EXTERNAL] [council] Next steps for the Whois Accuracy Implementation Advisory Group CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you can confirm the sender and know the content is safe. Dear Councilors, During our April meeting<https://icann.zoom.us/rec/play/m7OxKCA5oQ9K_waOhDVno3cyrjdqXBktXf0uHaIGJT6I2...>, we discussed potential next steps for the Whois Accuracy Implementation Advisory Group. Background and potential options are below (the meeting recording<https://icann.zoom.us/rec/play/B88W5Be-pDdOMPBXvuhFOa3rbb00kxbNYyjHRGk-meJ7e...> includes additional). Please discuss with your SGs and provide feedback by Friday, 2 May. What is this procedure? ICANN's Procedure For Handling Registration Data Directory Services Conflicts with Privacy Law<https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/rdds-conflicts-procedure-2024-02-21-en> is a procedure that allows Contracted Parties to demonstrate when they are prevented by local laws from fully complying with the provisions of ICANN contracts regarding personal data in RDDS. After receiving a recommendation from the 2003 Whois Task Force, the GNSO launched a PDP on this topic in 2005, and ICANN org implemented a procedure in 2006. The procedure was updated in 2017 to include an alternative trigger. Why is the Council considering this now? Following the addition of the new alternative trigger to the procedure in 2017, the GNSO Council was set to review the procedure by launching a PDP. However, because the EPDP on the Temporary Specification was engaged in parallel work, the GNSO Council decided to pause the call for volunteers until the EPDP Team delivered its report. Following the publication of the Final Report, ICANN org and Contracted Parties agreed to prioritize their work on the Data Processing Specification prior to revisiting the Conflicts Procedure. ICANN org published the Data Processing Specification<https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/data-processing-specification-requests...> (DPS) in January 2025. Now that the DPS is complete, the Council is considering if/how it should proceed on reviewing the Conflicts Procedure. Questions to consider? As discussed during the Council meeting and brought up councilors, some of the factors to consider in determining how to proceed include: * Do Contracted Parties (the parties who would use the procedure) believe this is an urgent need as no Contracted Parties have used the procedure in years? * Does the new Registration Data Policy, which becomes effective in August, obviate the need for a modification to the procedure? * Does the Council believe this should be a priority, which would require other work to be de-prioritized? Potential Options 1. Defer/Leave procedure as is * If Councilors (particularly Contracted Parties) do not believe this procedure needs an urgent modification, further work could be: * Deferred indefinitely until the Community communicates a need to review (in other words, leave the procedure alone until the Community informs Council it needs to be reviewed.) * Deferred for a finite amount of time (1 year, 2 years, etc.) to revisit if updates may be needed 1. Proceed with original plan - ICANN org to draft modification in consultation with CPs * If Councilors (particularly Contracted Parties) believe this work is urgent and important, the Council could request ICANN org to draft a modification to the procedure in consultation with Contracted Parties before sharing with the Council. (As noted above, due to resource constraints, the Council would need to determine what work can be de-prioritized in order to prioritize this work.) 1. Terminate/Retire procedure * During the meeting, some councilors noted it may be worth terminating/retiring this procedure due to flaws. It is important to note that the termination/retirement of the procedure would require further policy work as this procedure is the product of GNSO policy recommendations. If the Council does not want to extend resources on this procedure at this time, it may be worth exploring Option 1. Deadline for Feedback? Please socialize with your respective SG/Cs and let the Council know how you think it should proceed by Friday, 2 May. Thanks, Greg
Thanks Greg. The IPC shares that view. We don't believe we should retire the process, since there might still be a need for it in future, but don't think this warrants community work at this time. Susan Payne Head of Legal Policy Com Laude T +44 (0) 20 7421 8250 Ext 255 [cid:image001.png@01DBBB6C.DEEB3460] <https://comlaude.com/> Follow us on LinkedIn<https://t-uk.xink.io/Tracking/Index/pRkAAGVfAADw_RQA0> and YouTube<https://t-uk.xink.io/Tracking/Index/bhkAAGVfAADw_RQA0> From: DiBiase, Gregory via council <council@icann.org> Sent: 01 May 2025 15:19 To: Council@icann.org Subject: [council] Re: Next steps for the Whois Accuracy Implementation Advisory Group Hi Councilors, The RrSG would like to defer indefinitely (see option 1 below). There may be a scenario that arises in which this procedure is needed, and we can revisit at that time, but at the moment, registrars do not believe this work constitutes a productive use of our resources. Thanks, Greg From: DiBiase, Gregory via council <council@icann.org<mailto:council@icann.org>> Sent: Monday, April 21, 2025 9:28 AM To: Council@icann.org<mailto:Council@icann.org> Subject: [EXTERNAL] [council] Next steps for the Whois Accuracy Implementation Advisory Group CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you can confirm the sender and know the content is safe. Dear Councilors, During our April meeting<https://icann.zoom.us/rec/play/m7OxKCA5oQ9K_waOhDVno3cyrjdqXBktXf0uHaIGJT6I2...>, we discussed potential next steps for the Whois Accuracy Implementation Advisory Group. Background and potential options are below (the meeting recording<https://icann.zoom.us/rec/play/B88W5Be-pDdOMPBXvuhFOa3rbb00kxbNYyjHRGk-meJ7e...> includes additional). Please discuss with your SGs and provide feedback by Friday, 2 May. What is this procedure? ICANN's Procedure For Handling Registration Data Directory Services Conflicts with Privacy Law<https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/rdds-conflicts-procedure-2024-02-21-en> is a procedure that allows Contracted Parties to demonstrate when they are prevented by local laws from fully complying with the provisions of ICANN contracts regarding personal data in RDDS. After receiving a recommendation from the 2003 Whois Task Force, the GNSO launched a PDP on this topic in 2005, and ICANN org implemented a procedure in 2006. The procedure was updated in 2017 to include an alternative trigger. Why is the Council considering this now? Following the addition of the new alternative trigger to the procedure in 2017, the GNSO Council was set to review the procedure by launching a PDP. However, because the EPDP on the Temporary Specification was engaged in parallel work, the GNSO Council decided to pause the call for volunteers until the EPDP Team delivered its report. Following the publication of the Final Report, ICANN org and Contracted Parties agreed to prioritize their work on the Data Processing Specification prior to revisiting the Conflicts Procedure. ICANN org published the Data Processing Specification<https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/data-processing-specification-requests...> (DPS) in January 2025. Now that the DPS is complete, the Council is considering if/how it should proceed on reviewing the Conflicts Procedure. Questions to consider? As discussed during the Council meeting and brought up councilors, some of the factors to consider in determining how to proceed include: * Do Contracted Parties (the parties who would use the procedure) believe this is an urgent need as no Contracted Parties have used the procedure in years? * Does the new Registration Data Policy, which becomes effective in August, obviate the need for a modification to the procedure? * Does the Council believe this should be a priority, which would require other work to be de-prioritized? Potential Options 1. Defer/Leave procedure as is * If Councilors (particularly Contracted Parties) do not believe this procedure needs an urgent modification, further work could be: * Deferred indefinitely until the Community communicates a need to review (in other words, leave the procedure alone until the Community informs Council it needs to be reviewed.) * Deferred for a finite amount of time (1 year, 2 years, etc.) to revisit if updates may be needed 1. Proceed with original plan - ICANN org to draft modification in consultation with CPs * If Councilors (particularly Contracted Parties) believe this work is urgent and important, the Council could request ICANN org to draft a modification to the procedure in consultation with Contracted Parties before sharing with the Council. (As noted above, due to resource constraints, the Council would need to determine what work can be de-prioritized in order to prioritize this work.) 1. Terminate/Retire procedure * During the meeting, some councilors noted it may be worth terminating/retiring this procedure due to flaws. It is important to note that the termination/retirement of the procedure would require further policy work as this procedure is the product of GNSO policy recommendations. If the Council does not want to extend resources on this procedure at this time, it may be worth exploring Option 1. Deadline for Feedback? Please socialize with your respective SG/Cs and let the Council know how you think it should proceed by Friday, 2 May. Thanks, Greg ________________________________ The contents of this email and any attachments are confidential to the intended recipient. They may not be disclosed, used by or copied in any way by anyone other than the intended recipient. If you have received this message in error, please return it to the sender (deleting the body of the email and attachments in your reply) and immediately and permanently delete it. Please note that Com Laude Group Limited (the "Com Laude Group") does not accept any responsibility for viruses and it is your responsibility to scan or otherwise check this email and any attachments. The Com Laude Group does not accept liability for statements which are clearly the sender's own and not made on behalf of the group or one of its member entities. The Com Laude Group is a limited company registered in England and Wales with company number 10689074 and registered office at 28 Little Russell Street, London, WC1A 2HN England. The Com Laude Group includes Nom-IQ Limited t/a Com Laude, a company registered in England and Wales with company number 5047655 and registered office at 28 Little Russell Street, London, WC1A 2HN England; Valideus Limited, a company registered in England and Wales with company number 6181291 and registered office at 28 Little Russell Street, London, WC1A 2HN England; Demys Limited, a company registered in Scotland with company number SC197176 and registered office at 15 William Street, South West Lane, Edinburgh, EH3 7LL Scotland; Consonum, Inc. dba Com Laude USA and Valideus USA, a corporation incorporated in the State of Washington and principal office address at Suite 332, Securities Building, 1904 Third Ave, Seattle, WA 98101; Com Laude (Japan) Corporation, a company registered in Japan with company number 0100-01-190853 and registered office at 1-3-21 Shinkawa, Chuo-ku, Tokyo, 104-0033, Japan; Com Laude Domain ESP S.L.U., a company registered in Spain and registered office address at Calle Barcas 2, 2, Valencia, 46002, Spain. For further information see www.comlaude.com<https://comlaude.com/>
participants (2)
-
DiBiase, Gregory -
Susan Payne