- ispcp - lists.icann.org

WG: Revised Draft Survey for GNSO Working Groups
by KnobenW＠telekom.de Nov. 2, 2012

Nov. 2, 2012

All, the Standing Committee on Improvements Implementation (SCI) which I have the honour to chair plans to review the Working Group Guidelines - if so wished by the community. In order to do so we've developed a small draft survey which we'd like to send to members of still existing GNSO WGs and those who have just finished their work. Before we do this we would like to be sure that the survey is - understandable - not irrationale - complete Please comment on the draft survey attached or raise any question you may have at our call next Monday. BTW the first WG candidate shall be the IRTP-B one. Have a nice weekend Wolf-Ulrich ________________________________ Von: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc(a)icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org] Im Auftrag von Julie Hedlund Gesendet: Donnerstag, 1. November 2012 21:09 An: gnso-improvem-impl-sc(a)icann.org Betreff: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Revised Draft Survey for GNSO Working Groups Dear SCI members, Based on our discussion on today's SCI call, attached is a revised Draft Survey for GNSO Working Groups. I have accepted previous edits and have revised the scales in questions 4 and 5 to reflect a shorter scale (5 versus 7 points) and to assign a value to each point. Please let me know if you have any comments. I will collect any comments and will produce a Zoomerang trial survey that we can give to various groups, for example the Registrar SG and the IRTP Part C WG. Thank you for your assistance. Best regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director

1 0

Meeting invite: ISPCP call Monday 5 November at 15:00 UTC
by Glen de Saint Géry Nov. 2, 2012

Nov. 2, 2012

Dear All, Please note that the next ISPCP call is scheduled on MONDAY, 05 November 2012 at 1500 UTC. To check your local time: http://tinyurl.com/aolxnp6 Please find the dial-in details below: Participant Passcode: Participant: 3429 # Dial-in numbers: http://www.adigo.com/icann/ Thank you. Kind regards, Glen Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

WG: Updated WHOIS RT FInal Report Recommendations
by KnobenW＠telekom.de Oct. 30, 2012

Oct. 30, 2012

Sorry for being a bit late with this since Margie's deadline is today, Oct 29. I've already added ISPCP support for each of the recommendations themselves. Please check and comment if any. Best regards Wolf-Ulrich ________________________________ Von: owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] Im Auftrag von Margie Milam Gesendet: Dienstag, 23. Oktober 2012 22:05 An: council(a)gnso.icann.org Betreff: [council] Updated WHOIS RT FInal Report Recommendations Dear All, As discussed last week, I updated the draft WHOIS RT summary chart to include the clarifications requested by the ISP Constituency, and to include a column clarifying whether there was agreement with the substance of each recommendation, based upon the comments submitted in the Public Comment Forum (PCF) for the WHOIS Review Team Final Report. In reviewing the comments<http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/report-comments-whois-rt-final-…> filed in the PCF, I did not locate submissions from each constituency/SG, making it difficult to complete the chart. Notably missing were comments from Registrars, NCSG, or the IPC on the Final Report (although in some cases there were submissions on the draft report). In addition, from the comments actually submitted, it was not clear whether the commentators agreed/disagreed with the recommendation itself, since many of the comments appeared to address aspects of the recommendations, as opposed to evaluating the recommendation holistically. As a result, it is important that each constituency/stakeholder group review the information contained in the attached chart, and indicate whether they agree/disagree with each of the recommendations. Please provide this information by COB Monday, October 29, 2012, so that the chart can be finalized in advance of the Board's consideration of the WHOIS RT Final Report Recommendations. All the best, Margie _______ Margie Milam Senior Policy Counselor ICANN _______

2 1

Fwd: [gnso-thickwhois-dt] Call for volunteers - 'thick' Whois PDP WG
by Mike O'Connor Oct. 24, 2012

Oct. 24, 2012

hi all, here's the call for volunteers for the Thick Whois working group. i've volunteered to participate in this one, so we're covered. but the more the merrier. :-) mikey Begin forwarded message: > > Call for Volunteers: 'thick' Whois Policy Development Process (PDP) Working Group Members > > Last Updated: 23 October 2012 > Date: > 23 October 2012 > In Brief > > The Generic Names Supporting Organization (GNSO) Council seeks volunteers to serve on a Policy Development Process (PDP) Working Group (WG) that has been chartered to provide the GNSO Council with a policy recommendation regarding the use of 'thick' Whois by all gTLD Registries, both existing and future. > What This Group Will Do > > As part of its deliberations on this issue, the PDP WG is expected, at a minimum, to consider the following elements as detailed in the 'thick' Whois Final Issue Report: > Response consistency: a 'thick' Registry can dictate the labeling and display of Whois information to be sure the information is easy to parse, and all Registrars/clients would have to display it accordingly. This could be considered a benefit but also a potential cost. This might also be a benefit in the context of internationalized registration data as even with the use of different scripts, uniform data collection and display standards could be applied. > Stability: in the event of a Registrar business or technical failure, it could be beneficial to ICANN and registrants to have the full set of domain registration contact data stored by four organizations (the Registry, the Registry's escrow agent, the Registrar, and the Registrar's escrow agent), which would be the case in a 'thick' registry. > Accessibility: is the provision of Whois information at the registry level under the 'thick' Whois model more effective and cost-effective than a 'thin' model in protecting consumers and users of Whois data and intellectual property owners? > Impact on privacy and data protection: how would 'thick' Whois affect privacy and data protection, also taking into account the involvement of different jurisdictions with different laws and legislation with regard to data privacy as well as possible cross border transfers of registrant data? > Cost implications: what are the cost implications of a transition to 'thick' Whois for Registries, Registrars, registrants and other parties for all gTLDs? Conversely, what are the cost implications to Registries, Registrars, registrants and other parties if no transition is mandated? > Synchronization/migration: what would be the impact on the registry and registrar WHOIS and EPP systems for those Registries currently operating a thin registry, both in the migration phase to 'thick' WHOIS as well as ongoing operations? > Authoritativeness: what are the implications of a 'thin' Registry possibly becoming authoritative for registrant Whois data following the transition from a thin-registry model to a thick-registry model. The Working Group should consider the term "authoritative" in both the technical (the repository of the authoritative data) and policy (who has authority over the data) meanings of the word when considering this issue. > Competition in registry services: what would be the impact on competition in registry services should all Registries be required to provide Whois service using the 'thick' Whois model – would there be more, less or no difference with regard to competition in registry services? > Existing Whois Applications: What, if anything, are the potential impacts on the providers of third-party WHOIS-related applications if 'thick' WHOIS is required for all gtLDs? > Data escrow: 'thick' Whois might obviate the need for the registrar escrow program and attendant expenses to ICANN and registrars. > Registrar Port 43 Whois requirements: 'thick' Whois could make the requirement for Registrars to maintain Port 43 Whois access redundant. > For further details and requirements, see the WG Charter. > How This Group Will Work > > ICANN Working Groups use transparent, open processes. WGs typically meet once a week by telephone for a minimum of one hour. The meetings of the WG will be recorded, and the recordings will be available to the public. The mailing list for the 'thick' Whois PDP WG will be archived publicly. Working Group members are expected to submit Statements of Interest (SOI). The group will collaborate using a public workspace. The WG is expected to follow the GNSO Working Group Guidelines. In addition, the WG is expected to follow the procedures outlined in the GNSO PDP Manual. > How to Join > > The Council invites interested parties to provide names of expected participants who can then be added to the WG mailing list. The GNSO Council may also invite stakeholders and experts to join. Community members who wish to be invited to join the group should contact the GNSO secretariat (gnso.secretariat(a)icann.org) > Background > > ICANN specifies Whois service requirements through Registry Agreements (RAs) and the Registrar Accreditation Agreement (RAA) for the generic top-level domain (gTLD) registries. > Registries have historically satisfied their Whois obligations under two different models. The two models are often characterized as "thin" and "thick" Whois registries. This distinction is based on how two distinct sets of data are maintained. > WHOIS contains two kinds of data about a domain name; one set of data is associated with the domain name (this information includes data sufficient to identify the sponsoring registrar, status of the registration, creation and expiration dates for each registration, name server data, the last time the record was updated in the Registry database, and the URL for the registrar's Whois service), and a second set of data that is associated with the registrant of the domain name. > In a thin registration model the Registry only collects the information associated with the domain name from the Registrar. The Registry in turn publishes that information along with maintaining certain status information at the Registry level. Registrars maintain data associated with the registrant of the domain and provide it via their own Whois services, as required by Section 3.3 of the RAA for those domains they sponsor. > In a thick registration model the Registry collects both sets of data (domain name and registrant) from the Registrar and in turn publishes that data via Whois. > As recommended by the Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy (IRTP) Part B Working Group, the GNSO Council asked ICANN staff to prepare an Issue Report on the requirement of "thick" Whois for all gTLDs. The Council requested that the Issue Report and possible subsequent Policy Development Process consider a possible requirement of "thick" Whois for all gTLDs in the context of IRTP and also consider any positive and/or negative effects likely to occur outside of IRTP that should be taken into account when deciding whether to require "thick" Whois for all incumbent gTLDs. ICANN staff submitted the Final Issue Report to the GNSO Council for consideration on 2 February 2012. > At its meeting in Costa Rica last March, the GNSO Council initiated a Policy Development Process on "thick" Whois. However, considering the workload of the GNSO community, the GNSO Council on 12 April resolved to delay the formation of a drafting team to develop a charter until December 2012. The Council reconsidered that decision at its meeting in Prague in June 2012, and decided to move forward with the PDP. A drafting team was formed to develop a charter which was adopted by the GNSO Council at its meeting on 17 October 2012. PHONE: 651-647-6109, FAX: 866-280-2356, WEB: www.haven2.com, HANDLE: OConnorStP (ID for Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn, etc.)

1 0

Invitation to Join the ICANN Board for Cocktails in Toronto
by tony holmes Oct. 16, 2012

Oct. 16, 2012

ISPCP members I have now provided Diane with an estimate of numbers to assist in planning for this event. All those who confirmed they will attend the CSG breakfast meeting are on that list. If you wish to attend either event and have still yet to notify me please respond ASAP. Thanks Tony From: Diane Schroeder [mailto:diane.schroeder@icann.org] Sent: 21 September 2012 00:37 To: marilynscade(a)hotmail.com; tonyarholmes(a)btinternet.com; met(a)msk.com; robin(a)ipjustice.org; alain.berranger(a)gmail.com; dave(a)difference.com.au Cc: David Olive Subject: Invitation to Join the ICANN Board for Cocktails in Toronto Dear SG/C Leaders: On behalf of the ICANN Board, I am writing to invite you and your constituency members to join the Board for cocktails in Toronto to raise and discuss issues of mutual interest in a more relaxed and informal way. I hope you and your colleagues will be able to attend. As you all know, the schedules at ICANN meetings are becoming more challenging. The Board wishes to continue to meet with you and your members at a social gathering in addition to the regular time together during Tuesday's community day consultations. With this in mind, this cocktail has been scheduled on Tuesday from 7pm to 8pm in the Marine Room of the Westin Hotel to focus attention on the GNSO commercial and non-commercial members. Please extend this invitation to all your constituency members. Regards, Diane Schroeder Director of Board Support

2 2

DSSA update slides
by Mike O'Connor Oct. 16, 2012

Oct. 16, 2012

hi all, here are the slides that i used to (very quickly) update you today on what the DSSA is doing. the last page has a link to our web site mikey PHONE: 651-647-6109, FAX: 866-280-2356, WEB: www.haven2.com, HANDLE: OConnorStP (ID for Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn, etc.)

1 0

WG: GNSO topics for the Board 13:00 14:30 Harbour AB
by KnobenW＠telekom.de Oct. 14, 2012

Oct. 14, 2012

FYI Wolf-Ulrich ________________________________ Von: owner-gnso-chairs(a)icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-chairs@icann.org] Im Auftrag von Glen de Saint Géry Gesendet: Sonntag, 14. Oktober 2012 09:01 An: Diane Schroeder; Secretary Cc: gnso-chairs(a)icann.org Betreff: [gnso-chairs] GNSO topics for the Board 13:00 14:30 Harbour AB Dear Diane, Please find the topics that the GNSO would like to discuss with the Board. Thank you very much. Kind regards Glen Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org<mailto:gnso.secretariat@gnso.icann.org> http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

WG: Suggestions for Compromise re WHOIS RT Final Report -- PROPOSED DRAFT
by KnobenW＠telekom.de Oct. 14, 2012

Oct. 14, 2012

FYI Wolf-Ulrich Knoben ________________________________ Von: Winterfeldt, Brian [mailto:bwinterfeldt@steptoe.com] Gesendet: Sonntag, 14. Oktober 2012 11:13 An: Stéphane Van Gelder (stephane.vangelder(a)indom.com) Cc: Neuman, Jeff (Jeff.Neuman(a)neustar.us) Knoben, Wolf-Ulrich Betreff: FW: Suggestions for Compromise re WHOIS RT Final Report -- PROPOSED DRAFT FYI Brian J. Winterfeldt Partner bwinterfeldt(a)steptoe.com<mailto:bwinterfeldt@steptoe.com> Steptoe From: Winterfeldt, Brian Sent: Sunday, October 14, 2012 11:08 AM To: Wendy Seltzer (wendy(a)seltzer.com) Subject: Suggestions for Compromise re WHOIS RT Final Report -- PROPOSED DRAFT Dear Wendy, Please find below the beginning of a working draft I put together last night to try to suggest were both of our groups can possibly compromise. Please review with your SG and let me know if you think there is room for negotiation on any of the below points. Many thanks for your time to try to reach some additional consensus before reporting to the Board. I appreciate the opportunity to work with you on this. Best, Brian WHOIS RT Final Report Suggestions for Compromise - Implementation vs. Policy Development At its Board Meeting on October 18, 2012, the ICANN Board is scheduled to vote as to how to move forward with the 16 recommendations contained in the WHOIS Review Team Final Report. To date, despite the Board's request for input, the GNSO Council has been unable to provide cohesive advice due to a disparity among constituencies and stakeholder groups as to which recommendations should require a PDP and which may be implemented without a PDP. In order to ensure that the Council has the opportunity to provide meaningful input to the Board, it appears a compromise would be necessary on this point. This document sets forth suggestions for compromise from both the NCSG and IPC and/or BC in order to allow the Council to provide guidance to the Board on as many of the RT's recommendations as possible. Existing Full Consensus that PDP Needed - No Compromise Required: 10a. The Review Team recommends that ICANN should initiate processes to regulate and oversee privacy and proxy service providers. 10b. The Review Team considers that one possible approach to achieving this would be to establish, through the appropriate means, an accreditation system for all proxy/privacy service providers. As part of this process, ICANN should consider the merits (if any) of establishing or maintaining a distinction between privacy and proxy services. 10c. The goal of this process should be to provide clear, consistent and enforceable requirements for the operation of these services consistent with national laws, and to strike an appropriate balance between stakeholders with competing but legitimate interests. At a minimum, this would include privacy, data protection, law enforcement, the industry around law enforcement and the human rights community. 10d. ICANN could, for example, use a mix of incentives and graduated sanctions to encourage proxy/privacy service providers to become accredited, and to ensure that registrars do not knowingly accept registrations from unaccredited providers. 10e. ICANN could develop a graduated and enforceable series of penalties for proxy/privacy service providers who violate the requirements, with a clear path to de-accreditation for repeat, serial or otherwise serious breaches. 10f. In considering the process to regulate and oversee privacy/proxy service providers, consideration should be given to the following objectives: . . . Suggestions for NCSG To Consider Possibly Compromising on position that No PDP Needed (I am of course not suggesting that you compromise necessarily on all these points - but thought it might be helpful to identify ones to focus your review on from my analysis of the various positions and points at issue): Please note that these recommendations generally relate to ICANN data/report generation and other administrative functions to be completed by ICANN staff. 1. It is recommended that WHOIS, in all its aspects, should be a strategic priority for ICANN the organization. It should form the basis of staff incentivization and published organizational objectives. 3. ICANN should ensure that WHOIS policy issues are accompanied by cross-community outreach, including outreach to the communities outside of ICANN with a specific interest in the issues, and an ongoing program for consumer awareness. 4. ICANN should act to ensure that its compliance function is managed in accordance with best practice principles . . . 5. ICANN should ensure that the requirements for accurate WHOIS data are widely and pro-actively communicated, including to current and prospective Registrants, and should use all means available to progress WHOIS accuracy, including any internationalized WHOIS data, as an organizational objective. (note: NCSG position not included on recommendation chart) 7. ICANN shall produce and publish an accuracy report focused on measured reduction in WHOIS registrations that fall into the accuracy groups Substantial Failure and Full Failure, on an annual basis. 9a. The ICANN Board should ensure that the Compliance Team develop, in consultation with relevant contracted parties, metrics to track the impact of the annual WHOIS Data Reminder Policy (WDRP) notices to registrants. Such metrics should be used to develop and publish performance targets, to improve data accuracy over time. 11. It is recommended that the Internic Service is overhauled to provide enhanced usability for consumers, including the display of full registrant data for all gTLD domain names (whether those gTLDs operate thin or thick WHOIS services) in order to create a one stop shop, from a trusted provider, for consumers and other users of WHOIS services. 12. ICANN should task a working group within six months of publication of this report, to determine appropriate internationalized domain name registration data requirements and evaluate available solutions (including solutions being implemented by ccTLDs). At a minimum, the data requirements should apply to all new gTLDs, and the working group should consider ways to encourage consistency of approach across the gTLD and (on a voluntary basis) ccTLD space. The working group should report within a year of being tasked. 16. ICANN should provide at least annual written status reports on its progress towards implementing the recommendations of this WHOIS Review Team. The first of these reports should be published one year, at the latest, after ICANN publishes the implementation plan mentioned in recommendation 15, above. Each of these reports should contain all relevant information, including all underlying facts, figures and analyses. Suggestions for IPC and/or BC Compromise that a PDP Can or Should be Conducted: 6. 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. 9b. If this [development of certain metrics] is unfeasible with the current system, the Board should ensure that an alternative, effective policy is developed (in accordance with ICANN's existing processes) and implemented in consultation with registrars that achieves the objective of improving data quality, in a measurable way. 13. The final data model, including (any) requirements for the translation or transliteration of the registration data, should be incorporated in the relevant Registrar and Registry agreements within 6 months of adoption of the working group's recommendations by the ICANN Board. If these recommendations are not finalized in time for the next revision of such agreements, explicit placeholders for this purpose should be put in place in the agreements for the new gTLD program at this time, and in the existing agreements when they come up for renewal. Further Analysis Necessary - No Clear Majority Position and/or Clarifications Needed from One or More Constituencies or Stakeholder Groups: 2. The ICANN Board should oversee the creation of a single WHOIS policy document, and reference it in subsequent versions of agreements with Contracted Parties. 8. ICANN should ensure that there is a clear, unambiguous and enforceable chain of contractual agreements with registries, registrars, and registrants to require the provision and maintenance of accurate WHOIS data. As part of these agreements, ICANN should ensure that clear, enforceable and graduated sanctions apply to registries, registrars and registrants that do not comply with its WHOIS policies. These sanctions should include de-registration and/or de-accreditation as appropriate in cases of serious or serial non-compliance. 14. In addition, metrics should be developed to maintain and measure the accuracy of the internationalized registration data and corresponding data in ASCII, with clearly defined compliance methods and targets, as per the details in Recommendations 5-9 in this document. 15. ICANN should provide a detailed and comprehensive plan within 3 months after the submission of the Final WHOIS Review Team report that outlines how ICANN will move forward in implementing these recommendations. Brian J. Winterfeldt Partner bwinterfeldt(a)steptoe.com<mailto:bwinterfeldt@steptoe.com> Steptoe +1 202 429 6260 direct +1 202 903 4422 mobile +1 202 429 3902 fax Steptoe & Johnson LLP - DC 1330 Connecticut Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20036 www.steptoe.com<http://www.steptoe.com/> +1 212.506.3935 direct +1 212.506.3950 fax Steptoe & Johnson LLP - New York 1114 Avenue of the Americas New York, NY 10036 This message and any attached documents contain information from the law firm Steptoe & Johnson LLP that may be confidential and/or privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, please do not read, copy, distribute, or use this information. If you have received this transmission in error, please notify the sender immediately by reply e-mail and then delete this message.

1 0

revised version of the Whois recommendation
by Mike O'Connor Oct. 14, 2012

Oct. 14, 2012

PHONE: 651-647-6109, FAX: 866-280-2356, WEB: www.haven2.com, HANDLE: OConnorStP (ID for Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn, etc.)

1 0

ISP meetings in Toronto
by tony holmes Oct. 13, 2012

Oct. 13, 2012

A brief reminder Sunday 8:00 9:00 CSG meets with our Board members (Bill and Bruce) Harbour C Note: Please do not enter the room before 8.00 as earklier there is a private BC meeting. 9:00 10:00 CSG Private Meeting Pier 4&5 10:30 12:00 ISPCP Private Meeting Queen's Quay 2 14:15 15:30 CSG Private Meeting Harbour C 15:30 16:30 Non Contracted Parties House Mtg Harbour C Tuesday 08.00CSG Breakfast with GAC - Marine room 09.45-11.15 CSG including CSG Board session - Harbour C 14.00 - 16.00 ISPCP mtg - Queens Key 1 16.00 - 16.30 Private ISPCP mtg - Queens Key 1

1 0