Re: [council] For your review: Draft Response - Registration Directory Service Review Team (RDS-WHOIS2-RT) Final Recommendations
Dear Marie, Thank you for the edits and comments from the BC. I have updated the draft for your further review and consideration. 1. Recommendation CC.1 - While I agree the Council is actively working to identify the appropriate mechanisms or processes to deal with EPDP Phase 2 Priority 2 issues (including data accuracy), we have not reached any consensus or conclusion yet. I hope the updated language more accurately reflects where things are right now. 2. Recommendation CC.4 - I have added a sentence to address BC's comment, although I feel this is not within Council's remit. Please feel free to add additional language or make further edits. I would be happy to jump on a call to discuss if you think that would be helpful. Kind regards, Pam ------------------------------------------------------------------ Sender:Marie Pattullo <marie.pattullo@aim.be> Sent At:2020 Jun. 24 (Wed.) 02:07 Recipient:Caitlin Tubergen <caitlin.tubergen@icann.org>; council@gnso.icann.org <council@gnso.icann.org> Subject:Re: [council] For your review: Draft Response - Registration Directory Service Review Team (RDS-WHOIS2-RT) Final Recommendations Dear Caitlin, dear all Many thanks for the attached draft. On behalf of the BC: 1. Recommendation CC.1: Our concerns around inaccurate registrant data, of which this is another aspect,are well known – as are those of other parts of the community, including the GAC (noting their comments and letter during ICANN68). · Substance: As the RT said, if the WHOIS record is public then the true status should be on display with the notation: “domain name is suspended due to incorrect data”. Further, in such cases the registrar should not be able to remove the suspension without receiving confirmation that the data was correct. · Process: while your explanation that the wider subject of accuracy is (unfortunately) not going to be dealt with by the current EPDP is correct, the phrase “If and when the Council decides to request an Issue Report on data accuracy” is quite dismissive and could be read as this subject being put permanently on ice. In the light of the concerns expressed, inter alia, by the BC and the GAC, could we be more proactive? Suggested amendment: “If and when [T]he Council is actively discussing the need for, and scope of, decides to request an Issue Report on data accuracy, in which Recommendation CC.1 could be included for consideration, if this item has not been addressed in the next round of contractual negotiations between ICANN org and the Contracted Parties (as directed by the Board).” 2. Recommendation CC.4: it should not be contentious that any adopted policy should be measured, audited, tracked, reported and enforced. Unfortunately, many policies have gone into effect without anyone in Compliance tracking (etc.) whether they are complied with in practice, which does seem to render the effort to adopt those policies as redundant. Not stating that in our reply seems to be a missed opportunity. As ever, we’re happy to discuss this further. Best Marie From: council <council-bounces@gnso.icann.org> On Behalf Of Caitlin Tubergen Sent: Friday, June 12, 2020 12:11 AM To: council@gnso.icann.org Subject: [council] For your review: Draft Response - Registration Directory Service Review Team (RDS-WHOIS2-RT) Final Recommendations SENT ON BEHALF OF COUNCIL LEADERSHIP Dear Councilors: Please find attached a draft response to the ICANN Board re: the two Registration Directory Service Review Team (RDS-WHOIS2-RT) Final Recommendations passed through to the GNSO Council from the ICANN Board. Keith, Pam, and Rafik have kindly provided a draft for your review. Please review the draft and provide suggested edits (if any) by Thursday, 25 June. Thank you. Best regards, Caitlin Tubergen Policy Senior Manager, GNSO Support From: Caitlin Tubergen <caitlin.tubergen@icann.org> Date: Wednesday, March 18, 2020 at 3:24 PM To: <council@gnso.icann.org> Subject: Board action - Registration Directory Service Review Team (RDS-WHOIS2-RT) Final Recommendations Sent on behalf of the Multi-stakeholder Strategy & Strategic Initiatives (MSSI) department: Dear GNSO Councillors, The purpose of this note is to highlight the 25 February 2020 Board action on the Registration Directory Service Review Team (RDS-WHOIS2-RT) Final Recommendations - see https://www.icann.org/resources/board-material/resolutions-2020-02-25-en. ICANN org wishes to notify you that the ICANN Board resolved to pass through two recommendations to the GNSO Council, in whole or in part, for your consideration, as documented in the scorecard associated with the Board resolution. Specifically, please see below Recommendations CC.1 and CC.4 RDS-WHOIS2 Recommendation CC.1: “The ICANN Board should initiate action intended to ensure that gTLD domain names suspended due to RDS (WHOIS) contact data which the registrar knows to be incorrect, and that remains incorrect until the registration is due for deletion, should be treated as follows: (1) The RDS (WHOIS) record should include a notation that the domain name is suspended due to incorrect data; and (2) Domain names with this notation should not be unsuspended without correcting the data.” Board resolution: The Board approved this recommendation and directed this item “to be included in the next round of contractual negotiations with the Contracted Parties”, with a note that “it cannot require or guarantee any negotiation outcomes”. The Board also noted that “this is an area that the GNSO Council might wish to take into a policy development process separate from any recourse to the policy development process that might be incorporated into the negotiation process”, and passed through this recommendation to the GNSO Council “for purposes of considering such initiation”. Recommendation CC.4: “The ICANN Board should recommend the GNSO adopt a risk-based approach to incorporating requirements for measurement, auditing, tracking, reporting and enforcement in all new RDS policies.” Board resolution: The Board passed the recommendation through to the GNSO Council, “with reference to documentation of clarifications received from RDS-WHOIS2 Implementation Shepherds in the 29 January 2020 discussion with the RDS Board Caucus Group”, i.e. “this recommendation could be directed to the GNSO”. Additionally, we would like to highlight the following language of the Board resolution: “in passing this recommendation through, the Board is neither accepting nor rejecting the recommendation. The Board is careful to respect the remit and roles of the different parts of the ICANN community and is not directing Board or ICANN org action that would usurp another group's remit”. These recommendations are for your consideration. Background The Registration Directory Service (RDS) Review is one of the four Specific Reviews anchored in Section 4.6 of the ICANN Bylaws. The RDS-WHOIS2 Review Team (RDS-WHOIS2-RT) produced 22 final recommendations for Board consideration and released itsFinal Report on 3 September 2019. The RDS-WHOIS2-RT Final Report is the culmination of over two years of work by 11 review team members, representing over 1,000 hours of meetings and countless more hours of work. As required bysection 4.6 of ICANN Bylaws, the Final Report was published forpublic commentto inform Board action on the final recommendations. The Board took action on each of the 22 recommendations produced by the RDS-WHOIS2-RT https://www.icann.org/resources/board-material/resolutions-2020-02-25-en. The Board’s action on each recommendation is documented in the scorecard published at https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/resolutions-board-action-rds-who.... We thank you for your collaboration and would welcome any updates on your progress in addressing, as appropriate, these recommendations, to be included into ICANN org’s reporting. Please let us know whether you have any questions. Thank you. Best regards, Multi-stakeholder Strategy & Strategic Initiatives (MSSI) department
Thanks so much Pam – really appreciate your willingness to consider the BC’s comments. We’re happy with your redraft. Wishing everyone a peaceful non-return home but return to your usual working hours! Best Marie From: PAMELALITTLE <pam.little@alibaba-inc.com> Sent: Thursday, June 25, 2020 6:59 AM To: Marie Pattullo <marie.pattullo@aim.be> Cc: Caitlin Tubergen <caitlin.tubergen@icann.org>; council@gnso.icann.org Subject: Re: [council] For your review: Draft Response - Registration Directory Service Review Team (RDS-WHOIS2-RT) Final Recommendations Dear Marie, Thank you for the edits and comments from the BC. I have updated the draft for your further review and consideration. 1. Recommendation CC.1 - While I agree the Council is actively working to identify the appropriate mechanisms or processes to deal with EPDP Phase 2 Priority 2 issues (including data accuracy), we have not reached any consensus or conclusion yet. I hope the updated language more accurately reflects where things are right now. 2. Recommendation CC.4 - I have added a sentence to address BC's comment, although I feel this is not within Council's remit. Please feel free to add additional language or make further edits. I would be happy to jump on a call to discuss if you think that would be helpful. Kind regards, Pam ------------------------------------------------------------------ Sender:Marie Pattullo <marie.pattullo@aim.be<mailto:marie.pattullo@aim.be>> Sent At:2020 Jun. 24 (Wed.) 02:07 Recipient:Caitlin Tubergen <caitlin.tubergen@icann.org<mailto:caitlin.tubergen@icann.org>>; council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org> <council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org>> Subject:Re: [council] For your review: Draft Response - Registration Directory Service Review Team (RDS-WHOIS2-RT) Final Recommendations Dear Caitlin, dear all Many thanks for the attached draft. On behalf of the BC: 1. Recommendation CC.1: Our concerns around inaccurate registrant data, of which this is another aspect,are well known – as are those of other parts of the community, including the GAC (noting their comments and letter during ICANN68). • Substance: As the RT said, if the WHOIS record is public then the true status should be on display with the notation: “domain name is suspended due to incorrect data”. Further, in such cases the registrar should not be able to remove the suspension without receiving confirmation that the data was correct. • Process: while your explanation that the wider subject of accuracy is (unfortunately) not going to be dealt with by the current EPDP is correct, the phrase “If and when the Council decides to request an Issue Report on data accuracy” is quite dismissive and could be read as this subject being put permanently on ice. In the light of the concerns expressed, inter alia, by the BC and the GAC, could we be more proactive? Suggested amendment: “If and when [T]he Council is actively discussing the need for, and scope of, decides to request an Issue Report on data accuracy, in which Recommendation CC.1 could be included for consideration, if this item has not been addressed in the next round of contractual negotiations between ICANN org and the Contracted Parties (as directed by the Board).” 2. Recommendation CC.4: it should not be contentious that any adopted policy should be measured, audited, tracked, reported and enforced. Unfortunately, many policies have gone into effect without anyone in Compliance tracking (etc.) whether they are complied with in practice, which does seem to render the effort to adopt those policies as redundant. Not stating that in our reply seems to be a missed opportunity. As ever, we’re happy to discuss this further. Best Marie From: council <council-bounces@gnso.icann.org<mailto:council-bounces@gnso.icann.org>> On Behalf Of Caitlin Tubergen Sent: Friday, June 12, 2020 12:11 AM To: council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org> Subject: [council] For your review: Draft Response - Registration Directory Service Review Team (RDS-WHOIS2-RT) Final Recommendations SENT ON BEHALF OF COUNCIL LEADERSHIP Dear Councilors: Please find attached a draft response to the ICANN Board re: the two Registration Directory Service Review Team (RDS-WHOIS2-RT) Final Recommendations passed through to the GNSO Council from the ICANN Board. Keith, Pam, and Rafik have kindly provided a draft for your review. Please review the draft and provide suggested edits (if any) by Thursday, 25 June. Thank you. Best regards, Caitlin Tubergen Policy Senior Manager, GNSO Support From: Caitlin Tubergen <caitlin.tubergen@icann.org<mailto:caitlin.tubergen@icann.org>> Date: Wednesday, March 18, 2020 at 3:24 PM To: <council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org>> Subject: Board action - Registration Directory Service Review Team (RDS-WHOIS2-RT) Final Recommendations Sent on behalf of the Multi-stakeholder Strategy & Strategic Initiatives (MSSI) department: Dear GNSO Councillors, The purpose of this note is to highlight the 25 February 2020 Board action on the Registration Directory Service Review Team (RDS-WHOIS2-RT) Final Recommendations - see https://www.icann.org/resources/board-material/resolutions-2020-02-25-en. ICANN org wishes to notify you that the ICANN Board resolved to pass through two recommendations to the GNSO Council, in whole or in part, for your consideration, as documented in the scorecard<https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/resolutions-board-action-rds-whois2-final-recs-25feb20-en.pdf> associated with the Board resolution<https://www.icann.org/resources/board-material/resolutions-2020-02-25-en>. Specifically, please see below Recommendations CC.1 and CC.4 RDS-WHOIS2 Recommendation CC.1: “The ICANN Board should initiate action intended to ensure that gTLD domain names suspended due to RDS (WHOIS) contact data which the registrar knows to be incorrect, and that remains incorrect until the registration is due for deletion, should be treated as follows: (1) The RDS (WHOIS) record should include a notation that the domain name is suspended due to incorrect data; and (2) Domain names with this notation should not be unsuspended without correcting the data.” Board resolution: The Board approved this recommendation and directed this item “to be included in the next round of contractual negotiations with the Contracted Parties”, with a note that “it cannot require or guarantee any negotiation outcomes”. The Board also noted that “this is an area that the GNSO Council might wish to take into a policy development process separate from any recourse to the policy development process that might be incorporated into the negotiation process”, and passed through this recommendation to the GNSO Council “for purposes of considering such initiation”. Recommendation CC.4: “The ICANN Board should recommend the GNSO adopt a risk-based approach to incorporating requirements for measurement, auditing, tracking, reporting and enforcement in all new RDS policies.” Board resolution: The Board passed the recommendation through to the GNSO Council, “with reference to documentation of clarifications received from RDS-WHOIS2 Implementation Shepherds in the 29 January 2020 discussion with the RDS Board Caucus Group”, i.e. “this recommendation could be directed to the GNSO”. Additionally, we would like to highlight the following language of the Board resolution: “in passing this recommendation through, the Board is neither accepting nor rejecting the recommendation. The Board is careful to respect the remit and roles of the different parts of the ICANN community and is not directing Board or ICANN org action that would usurp another group's remit”. These recommendations are for your consideration. Background The Registration Directory Service (RDS) Review is one of the four Specific Reviews anchored in Section 4.6 of the ICANN Bylaws. The RDS-WHOIS2 Review Team (RDS-WHOIS2-RT) produced 22 final recommendations for Board consideration and released itsFinal Report<https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/rds-whois2-review-03sep19-en.pdf> on 3 September 2019. The RDS-WHOIS2-RT Final Report is the culmination of over two years of work by 11 review team members, representing over 1,000 hours of meetings and countless more hours of work. As required bysection 4.6<https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/governance/bylaws-en/#article4.6> of ICANN Bylaws, the Final Report was published forpublic comment<https://www.icann.org/public-comments/rds-whois2-rt-final-report-2019-10-08-en>to inform Board action on the final recommendations. The Board took action on each of the 22 recommendations produced by the RDS-WHOIS2-RT https://www.icann.org/resources/board-material/resolutions-2020-02-25-en. The Board’s action on each recommendation is documented in the scorecard published at https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/resolutions-board-action-rds-who.... We thank you for your collaboration and would welcome any updates on your progress in addressing, as appropriate, these recommendations, to be included into ICANN org’s reporting. Please let us know whether you have any questions. Thank you. Best regards, Multi-stakeholder Strategy & Strategic Initiatives (MSSI) department
Thank you Marie for your prompt response and BC's support for the revisions. Dear Councilors - As we are aiming to send the correspondence to the Board this Friday, 3 July 2020, please provide any feedback or suggested edits by close of business Thursday 2 July 2020 (your local time). Kind regards, Pam ------------------------------------------------------------------ Sender:Marie Pattullo <marie.pattullo@aim.be> Sent At:2020 Jun. 27 (Sat.) 00:13 Recipient:PAMELALITTLE <pam.little@alibaba-inc.com> Cc:Caitlin Tubergen <caitlin.tubergen@icann.org>; council@gnso.icann.org <council@gnso.icann.org> Subject:RE: [council] For your review: Draft Response - Registration Directory Service Review Team (RDS-WHOIS2-RT) Final Recommendations Thanks so much Pam – really appreciate your willingness to consider the BC’s comments. We’re happy with your redraft. Wishing everyone a peaceful non-return home but return to your usual working hours! Best Marie From: PAMELALITTLE <pam.little@alibaba-inc.com> Sent: Thursday, June 25, 2020 6:59 AM To: Marie Pattullo <marie.pattullo@aim.be> Cc: Caitlin Tubergen <caitlin.tubergen@icann.org>; council@gnso.icann.org Subject: Re: [council] For your review: Draft Response - Registration Directory Service Review Team (RDS-WHOIS2-RT) Final Recommendations Dear Marie, Thank you for the edits and comments from the BC. I have updated the draft for your further review and consideration. 1. Recommendation CC.1 - While I agree the Council is actively working to identify the appropriate mechanisms or processes to deal with EPDP Phase 2 Priority 2 issues (including data accuracy), we have not reached any consensus or conclusion yet. I hope the updated language more accurately reflects where things are right now. 2. Recommendation CC.4 - I have added a sentence to address BC's comment, although I feel this is not within Council's remit. Please feel free to add additional language or make further edits. I would be happy to jump on a call to discuss if you think that would be helpful. Kind regards, Pam ------------------------------------------------------------------ Sender:Marie Pattullo <marie.pattullo@aim.be> Sent At:2020 Jun. 24 (Wed.) 02:07 Recipient:Caitlin Tubergen <caitlin.tubergen@icann.org>; council@gnso.icann.org <council@gnso.icann.org> Subject:Re: [council] For your review: Draft Response - Registration Directory Service Review Team (RDS-WHOIS2-RT) Final Recommendations Dear Caitlin, dear all Many thanks for the attached draft. On behalf of the BC: 1. Recommendation CC.1: Our concerns around inaccurate registrant data, of which this is another aspect,are well known – as are those of other parts of the community, including the GAC (noting their comments and letter during ICANN68). · Substance: As the RT said, if the WHOIS record is public then the true status should be on display with the notation: “domain name is suspended due to incorrect data”. Further, in such cases the registrar should not be able to remove the suspension without receiving confirmation that the data was correct. · Process: while your explanation that the wider subject of accuracy is (unfortunately) not going to be dealt with by the current EPDP is correct, the phrase “If and when the Council decides to request an Issue Report on data accuracy” is quite dismissive and could be read as this subject being put permanently on ice. In the light of the concerns expressed, inter alia, by the BC and the GAC, could we be more proactive? Suggested amendment: “If and when [T]he Council is actively discussing the need for, and scope of, decides to request an Issue Report on data accuracy, in which Recommendation CC.1 could be included for consideration, if this item has not been addressed in the next round of contractual negotiations between ICANN org and the Contracted Parties (as directed by the Board).” 2. Recommendation CC.4: it should not be contentious that any adopted policy should be measured, audited, tracked, reported and enforced. Unfortunately, many policies have gone into effect without anyone in Compliance tracking (etc.) whether they are complied with in practice, which does seem to render the effort to adopt those policies as redundant. Not stating that in our reply seems to be a missed opportunity. As ever, we’re happy to discuss this further. Best Marie From: council <council-bounces@gnso.icann.org> On Behalf Of Caitlin Tubergen Sent: Friday, June 12, 2020 12:11 AM To: council@gnso.icann.org Subject: [council] For your review: Draft Response - Registration Directory Service Review Team (RDS-WHOIS2-RT) Final Recommendations SENT ON BEHALF OF COUNCIL LEADERSHIP Dear Councilors: Please find attached a draft response to the ICANN Board re: the two Registration Directory Service Review Team (RDS-WHOIS2-RT) Final Recommendations passed through to the GNSO Council from the ICANN Board. Keith, Pam, and Rafik have kindly provided a draft for your review. Please review the draft and provide suggested edits (if any) by Thursday, 25 June. Thank you. Best regards, Caitlin Tubergen Policy Senior Manager, GNSO Support From: Caitlin Tubergen <caitlin.tubergen@icann.org> Date: Wednesday, March 18, 2020 at 3:24 PM To: <council@gnso.icann.org> Subject: Board action - Registration Directory Service Review Team (RDS-WHOIS2-RT) Final Recommendations Sent on behalf of the Multi-stakeholder Strategy & Strategic Initiatives (MSSI) department: Dear GNSO Councillors, The purpose of this note is to highlight the 25 February 2020 Board action on the Registration Directory Service Review Team (RDS-WHOIS2-RT) Final Recommendations - see https://www.icann.org/resources/board-material/resolutions-2020-02-25-en. ICANN org wishes to notify you that the ICANN Board resolved to pass through two recommendations to the GNSO Council, in whole or in part, for your consideration, as documented in the scorecard associated with the Board resolution. Specifically, please see below Recommendations CC.1 and CC.4 RDS-WHOIS2 Recommendation CC.1: “The ICANN Board should initiate action intended to ensure that gTLD domain names suspended due to RDS (WHOIS) contact data which the registrar knows to be incorrect, and that remains incorrect until the registration is due for deletion, should be treated as follows: (1) The RDS (WHOIS) record should include a notation that the domain name is suspended due to incorrect data; and (2) Domain names with this notation should not be unsuspended without correcting the data.” Board resolution: The Board approved this recommendation and directed this item “to be included in the next round of contractual negotiations with the Contracted Parties”, with a note that “it cannot require or guarantee any negotiation outcomes”. The Board also noted that “this is an area that the GNSO Council might wish to take into a policy development process separate from any recourse to the policy development process that might be incorporated into the negotiation process”, and passed through this recommendation to the GNSO Council “for purposes of considering such initiation”. Recommendation CC.4: “The ICANN Board should recommend the GNSO adopt a risk-based approach to incorporating requirements for measurement, auditing, tracking, reporting and enforcement in all new RDS policies.” Board resolution: The Board passed the recommendation through to the GNSO Council, “with reference to documentation of clarifications received from RDS-WHOIS2 Implementation Shepherds in the 29 January 2020 discussion with the RDS Board Caucus Group”, i.e. “this recommendation could be directed to the GNSO”. Additionally, we would like to highlight the following language of the Board resolution: “in passing this recommendation through, the Board is neither accepting nor rejecting the recommendation. The Board is careful to respect the remit and roles of the different parts of the ICANN community and is not directing Board or ICANN org action that would usurp another group's remit”. These recommendations are for your consideration. Background The Registration Directory Service (RDS) Review is one of the four Specific Reviews anchored in Section 4.6 of the ICANN Bylaws. The RDS-WHOIS2 Review Team (RDS-WHOIS2-RT) produced 22 final recommendations for Board consideration and released itsFinal Report on 3 September 2019. The RDS-WHOIS2-RT Final Report is the culmination of over two years of work by 11 review team members, representing over 1,000 hours of meetings and countless more hours of work. As required bysection 4.6 of ICANN Bylaws, the Final Report was published forpublic commentto inform Board action on the final recommendations. The Board took action on each of the 22 recommendations produced by the RDS-WHOIS2-RT https://www.icann.org/resources/board-material/resolutions-2020-02-25-en. The Board’s action on each recommendation is documented in the scorecard published at https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/resolutions-board-action-rds-who.... We thank you for your collaboration and would welcome any updates on your progress in addressing, as appropriate, these recommendations, to be included into ICANN org’s reporting. Please let us know whether you have any questions. Thank you. Best regards, Multi-stakeholder Strategy & Strategic Initiatives (MSSI) department
Seeing I was a member of that RT, I am, for propriety's sake, obliged to sit on my hands. Carlton ============================== *Carlton A Samuels* *Mobile: 876-818-1799Strategy, Process, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround* ============================= On Mon, Jun 29, 2020 at 6:17 PM Pam Little <pam.little@alibaba-inc.com> wrote:
Thank you Marie for your prompt response and BC's support for the revisions.
Dear Councilors - As we are aiming to send the correspondence to the Board this Friday, 3 July 2020, please provide any feedback or suggested edits by close of business Thursday 2 July 2020 (your local time).
Kind regards,
Pam
------------------------------------------------------------------ Sender:Marie Pattullo <marie.pattullo@aim.be> Sent At:2020 Jun. 27 (Sat.) 00:13 Recipient:PAMELALITTLE <pam.little@alibaba-inc.com> Cc:Caitlin Tubergen <caitlin.tubergen@icann.org>; council@gnso.icann.org < council@gnso.icann.org> Subject:RE: [council] For your review: Draft Response - Registration Directory Service Review Team (RDS-WHOIS2-RT) Final Recommendations
Thanks so much Pam – really appreciate your willingness to consider the BC’s comments. We’re happy with your redraft.
Wishing everyone a peaceful non-return home but return to your usual working hours!
Best
Marie
*From:* PAMELALITTLE <pam.little@alibaba-inc.com> *Sent:* Thursday, June 25, 2020 6:59 AM *To:* Marie Pattullo <marie.pattullo@aim.be> *Cc:* Caitlin Tubergen <caitlin.tubergen@icann.org>; council@gnso.icann.org *Subject:* Re: [council] For your review: Draft Response - Registration Directory Service Review Team (RDS-WHOIS2-RT) Final Recommendations
Dear Marie,
Thank you for the edits and comments from the BC. I have updated the draft for your further review and consideration.
1. Recommendation CC.1 - While I agree the Council is actively working to identify the appropriate mechanisms or processes to deal with EPDP Phase 2 Priority 2 issues (including data accuracy), we have not reached any consensus or conclusion yet. I hope the updated language more accurately reflects where things are right now.
2. Recommendation CC.4 - I have added a sentence to address BC's comment, although I feel this is not within Council's remit. Please feel free to add additional language or make further edits.
I would be happy to jump on a call to discuss if you think that would be helpful.
Kind regards,
Pam
------------------------------------------------------------------
Sender:Marie Pattullo <marie.pattullo@aim.be>
Sent At:2020 Jun. 24 (Wed.) 02:07
Recipient:Caitlin Tubergen <caitlin.tubergen@icann.org>; council@gnso.icann.org <council@gnso.icann.org>
Subject:Re: [council] For your review: Draft Response - Registration Directory Service Review Team (RDS-WHOIS2-RT) Final Recommendations
Dear Caitlin, dear all
Many thanks for the attached draft. On behalf of the BC:
1. Recommendation CC.1: Our concerns around inaccurate registrant data, of which this is another aspect,are well known – as are those of other parts of the community, including the GAC (noting their comments and letter during ICANN68).
· Substance: As the RT said, if the WHOIS record is public then the true status should be on display with the notation: “*domain name is suspended due to incorrect data*”. Further, in such cases the registrar should not be able to remove the suspension without receiving confirmation that the data was correct.
· Process: while your explanation that the wider subject of accuracy is (unfortunately) not going to be dealt with by the current EPDP is correct, the phrase “*If and when the Council decides to request an Issue Report on data accuracy*” is quite dismissive and could be read as this subject being put permanently on ice. In the light of the concerns expressed, inter alia, by the BC and the GAC, could we be more proactive? Suggested amendment:
“If and when [T]he Council is actively discussing the need for, and scope of, decides to request an Issue Report on data accuracy, in which Recommendation CC.1 could be included for consideration, if this item has not been addressed in the next round of contractual negotiations between ICANN org and the Contracted Parties (as directed by the Board).”
2. Recommendation CC.4: it should not be contentious that any adopted policy should be measured, audited, tracked, reported and enforced. Unfortunately, many policies have gone into effect without anyone in Compliance tracking (etc.) whether they are complied with in practice, which does seem to render the effort to adopt those policies as redundant. Not stating that in our reply seems to be a missed opportunity.
As ever, we’re happy to discuss this further.
Best
Marie
*From:* council <council-bounces@gnso.icann.org> *On Behalf Of *Caitlin Tubergen *Sent:* Friday, June 12, 2020 12:11 AM *To:* council@gnso.icann.org *Subject:* [council] For your review: Draft Response - Registration Directory Service Review Team (RDS-WHOIS2-RT) Final Recommendations
*SENT ON BEHALF OF COUNCIL LEADERSHIP *
Dear Councilors:
Please find attached a draft response to the ICANN Board re: the two Registration Directory Service Review Team (RDS-WHOIS2-RT) Final Recommendations passed through to the GNSO Council from the ICANN Board.
Keith, Pam, and Rafik have kindly provided a draft for your review.
Please review the draft and provide suggested edits (if any) by *Thursday, 25 June*.
Thank you.
Best regards,
Caitlin Tubergen
Policy Senior Manager, GNSO Support
*From: *Caitlin Tubergen <caitlin.tubergen@icann.org> *Date: *Wednesday, March 18, 2020 at 3:24 PM *To: *<council@gnso.icann.org> *Subject: *Board action - Registration Directory Service Review Team (RDS-WHOIS2-RT) Final Recommendations
*Sent on behalf of the Multi-stakeholder Strategy & Strategic Initiatives (MSSI) department:*
*Dear GNSO Councillors,*
The purpose of this note is to highlight the 25 February 2020 Board action on the Registration Directory Service Review Team (RDS-WHOIS2-RT) Final Recommendations - see https://www.icann.org/resources/board-material/resolutions-2020-02-25-en.
ICANN org wishes to notify you that the ICANN Board resolved to pass through two recommendations to the GNSO Council, in whole or in part, for your consideration, as documented in the scorecard <https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/resolutions-board-action-rds-whois2-final-recs-25feb20-en.pdf> associated with the Board resolution <https://www.icann.org/resources/board-material/resolutions-2020-02-25-en>. Specifically, please see below Recommendations CC.1 and CC.4
*RDS-WHOIS2 Recommendation CC.1*: *“The ICANN Board should initiate action intended to ensure that gTLD domain names suspended due to RDS (WHOIS) contact data which the registrar knows to be incorrect, and that remains incorrect until the registration is due for deletion, should be treated as follows: (1) The RDS (WHOIS) record should include a notation that the domain name is suspended due to incorrect data; and (2) Domain names with this notation should not be unsuspended without correcting the data.”*
*Board resolution*: The Board approved this recommendation and directed this item “to be included in the next round of contractual negotiations with the Contracted Parties”, with a note that “it cannot require or guarantee any negotiation outcomes”. The Board also noted that “this is an area that the GNSO Council might wish to take into a policy development process separate from any recourse to the policy development process that might be incorporated into the negotiation process”, and passed through this recommendation to the GNSO Council “for purposes of considering such initiation”.
*Recommendation CC.4: “**The ICANN Board should recommend the GNSO adopt a risk-based approach to incorporating requirements for measurement, auditing, tracking, reporting and enforcement in all new RDS policies.*”
*Board resolution*: The Board passed the recommendation through to the GNSO Council, “with reference to documentation of clarifications received from RDS-WHOIS2 Implementation Shepherds in the 29 January 2020 discussion with the RDS Board Caucus Group”, i.e. “this recommendation could be directed to the GNSO”.
Additionally, we would like to highlight the following language of the Board resolution: “in passing this recommendation through, the Board is neither accepting nor rejecting the recommendation. The Board is careful to respect the remit and roles of the different parts of the ICANN community and is not directing Board or ICANN org action that would usurp another group's remit”. These recommendations are for your consideration.
*Background*
The Registration Directory Service (RDS) Review is one of the four Specific Reviews anchored in Section 4.6 of the ICANN Bylaws.
The RDS-WHOIS2 Review Team (RDS-WHOIS2-RT) produced 22 final recommendations for Board consideration and released itsFinal Report <https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/rds-whois2-review-03sep19-en.pdf> on 3 September 2019. The RDS-WHOIS2-RT Final Report is the culmination of over two years of work by 11 review team members, representing over 1,000 hours of meetings and countless more hours of work.
As required bysection 4.6 <https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/governance/bylaws-en/#article4.6> of ICANN Bylaws, the Final Report was published forpublic comment <https://www.icann.org/public-comments/rds-whois2-rt-final-report-2019-10-08-en>to inform Board action on the final recommendations.
The Board took action on each of the 22 recommendations produced by the RDS-WHOIS2-RT https://www.icann.org/resources/board-material/resolutions-2020-02-25-en. The Board’s action on each recommendation is documented in the scorecard published at https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/resolutions-board-action-rds -whois2-final-recs-25feb20-en.pdf.
We thank you for your collaboration and would welcome any updates on your progress in addressing, as appropriate, these recommendations, to be included into ICANN org’s reporting.
Please let us know whether you have any questions.
Thank you.
Best regards,
Multi-stakeholder Strategy & Strategic Initiatives (MSSI) department
_______________________________________________ council mailing list council@gnso.icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/council
_______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
participants (4)
-
Carlton Samuels -
Marie Pattullo -
Pam Little -
PAMELALITTLE