April 2018 - RDS-WHOIS2-Outreach

Draft slides for Alan to expand
by Lisa Phifer April 12, 2018

April 12, 2018

2 1

Outreach Questions
by Alan Greenberg April 10, 2018

April 10, 2018

The Recommendation reads: 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. Question: What has ICANN done, on a one-time basis or ongoing, to address the requirement to reach out to communities outside of ICANN with an interest in WHOIS issues. Alan

2 1

Re: [RDS-WHOIS2-Outreach] Review of documents
by Alan Greenberg April 3, 2018

April 3, 2018

Further to this, there are also the educational videos at https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/educational-2012-02-25-en that are not linked from the portal or registrars. The tentative decision to present to the RT is that ICANN needs to revise all of this material to make it more accessible and understandable, to avoid duplication and remove the errors. It should not be done until we understand the implications of GDPR (but that should not be a problem based on when our final report is likely to come out). Although we will not make an attempt identify all of the problem, we will certainly give examples of problem areas (and structures) and parts that are good. Erika will be following up with a few things that she has noted that I missed. Alan At 02/04/2018 09:22 PM, Alan Greenberg wrote: >I have reviewed all of the documents and offer the following thoughts: > >1. The Registrant right and responsibilities, a part of the RAA, is >simple to read and understandable, but is very short. The Registrant >Benefits and Respectabilities, a document that Registrars must >present or point to is long, complex and legalistic. It constraints >statements that are difficult to understand and in some cases wrong >(example: If the Registered Name Holder did not consent to renewal, >the Registrar must make sure that a Registered Name is deleted from >the Registry database within 45 days of the end of the registration term.) > >2. The Web portal (also in consideration by the Single Interface >group) contains a lot of well-written understandable material, but >the shear amount of it makes it difficult to use and traverse. There >is a WHOIS PRIMER which is useful, but not pointed to by the portal. > >The net results is that depending on what a registrant may read, >they may be helps or thoroughly confused. > >The documents need to be review in total and reorganized and revised >to present everything in a simple and clear way. This should not be >done until the dust settles on the GDPR interim implementation >(which should not be an impediment given the likely timing of our >final report and the 6-months the Board and staff have to process >it. It must also be refined in time for a new RDS policy going into effect. > >There is no evidence of ICANN addressing the requirement to educate >those outside of ICANN (other than through the information noted >above) and no actual "outreach". It is not clear that such outreach >is practical, but if it is in the view of the RT, the Recommendation >should be made again (in my current view, we should restrict >ourselves to crystal clear documentation and not bother with >explicit outreach). > >Alan >

1 0

Review of documents
by Alan Greenberg April 2, 2018

April 2, 2018

I have reviewed all of the documents and offer the following thoughts: 1. The Registrant right and responsibilities, a part of the RAA, is simple to read and understandable, but is very short. The Registrant Benefits and Respectabilities, a document that Registrars must present or point to is long, complex and legalistic. It constraints statements that are difficult to understand and in some cases wrong (example: If the Registered Name Holder did not consent to renewal, the Registrar must make sure that a Registered Name is deleted from the Registry database within 45 days of the end of the registration term.) 2. The Web portal (also in consideration by the Single Interface group) contains a lot of well-written understandable material, but the shear amount of it makes it difficult to use and traverse. There is a WHOIS PRIMER which is useful, but not pointed to by the portal. The net results is that depending on what a registrant may read, they may be helps or thoroughly confused. The documents need to be review in total and reorganized and revised to present everything in a simple and clear way. This should not be done until the dust settles on the GDPR interim implementation (which should not be an impediment given the likely timing of our final report and the 6-months the Board and staff have to process it. It must also be refined in time for a new RDS policy going into effect. There is no evidence of ICANN addressing the requirement to educate those outside of ICANN (other than through the information noted above) and no actual "outreach". It is not clear that such outreach is practical, but if it is in the view of the RT, the Recommendation should be made again (in my current view, we should restrict ourselves to crystal clear documentation and not bother with explicit outreach). Alan

1 0