January 2019 - RDS-WHOIS2-RT

Measurement of Consensus
by Alan Greenberg Feb. 2, 2019

Feb. 2, 2019

In our draft report, for each recommendation, we reported "Level of Consensus" as "No objections". Shouldn't that be reported as "Full Consensus"? That states it in a positive instead of negative way, and is also what is specified in our Terms of Reference. Alan

4 3

Privacy/Proxy question
by Alan Greenberg Jan. 31, 2019

Jan. 31, 2019

Volker, On page 5 of the P/P section (https://docs.google.com/document/d/1RJZqEwjdiwxA_7tyYo87pjRlCCG7Emb-ByaRnjy…) The following is problematic: >Default: >The review team declines to make any recommendations regarding >privacy services as it considers WHOIS1 Recommendation 10 as fully >implemented. > >Optional, triggered by failure or PPSAI IRT to conclude its work. "Default" and Optional are confusing, and the sentence is incorrect in that we ARE making 2 recommendations (even though one of them may evaporate if the IRT completes its work). I suggest we delete all of that and just start with the "While the ..." OK? Alan

2 1

Common Interface rec.
by Susan Kawaguchi Jan. 30, 2019

Jan. 30, 2019

We have additional questions for ICANN org. Please see highlighted below We have found several error messages in using the tool referenced below: The requested second-level domain was not found in the Registry or Registrar’s WHOIS Server. (the domain name was confirmed to be registered with the registry) Sorry, but the Registry or Registrar WHOIS Server responded with a rate limit message due to high query volumes or has closed the connection without a response. Please try your request again later. ICANN received a timeout while querying the Registry or Registrar’s WHOIS Server Are these error messages created by ICANN or do they come directly from the Registrar or Registry? Does ICANN track how often these error messages are presented in response to a WHOIS query?

4 3

FW: ICANN org input
by Jean-Baptiste Deroulez Jan. 30, 2019

Jan. 30, 2019

Dear review team members, Following up on your plenary call #47 discussion on draft report updates, please find below the ICANN org input shared on your draft report recommendations and the action items that resulted from the email below and discussion at the face-to-face meeting. In preparation for the call for consensus, please review asap the following action items identified at the last face-to-face meeting and confirm that each recommendation addressed these: Recommendations (All) Action item: Instead of trying to assign a high, medium or low priority, describe when this recommendation should be implemented and what the target completion date should be. Include a description of an ideal completion date recognizing some of the ongoing dependencies, and consideration should be given to resources (costs, community resources) that would be needed. R1.1 | R1.2 (Cathrin) Action item: Implementation note “review should be implemented as soon as possible and at the latest within 6 months” should be reviewed to factor in section 4.6 of the ICANN Bylaws where the ICANN Board has six months within receipt of the final report to consider the review team’s recommendations. Action item: Recommendation refers to reports covering all the ongoing legislative initiatives, but in fact, should also identify previous legislative efforts across the globe. R1.3 (Cathrin) Action item: Implementation note “review should be implemented as soon as possible and at the latest within 6 months” should be reviewed to factor in section 4.6 of the ICANN Bylaws where the ICANN Board has six months within receipt of the final report to consider the review team’s recommendations. R4.2 (Susan) Action item: Remove “Sanctions should be applied if significant deficiencies in RDS (WHOIS) data validation or verification are identified.” Or make it clear that we are talking about sanctions that are on the books. Law Enforcement Needs Section (Cathrin) Action item: Clarify what regular refers to in the recommendations, and potentially refine the scope of the envisioned survey so that its purpose is well defined. LE.1 (Cathrin) Action item: Implementation note “review should be implemented as soon as possible and at the latest within 6 months” should be reviewed to factor in section 4.6 of the ICANN Bylaws where the ICANN Board has six months within receipt of the final report to consider the review team’s recommendations. Action item: Review this recommendation and specify what we mean by regular, by perhaps clarifying recommendation itself and also adding a little rationale to explain the two reasons that review team see for conducting such surveys and studies, which are, A, to do an ex-ante impact assessment of projected new policies or prepare a review team, or B, to evaluate new policies once they are in place. Action item: Bring the above and survey questions to the EPDP (Alan) and GAC (Cathrin) LE.2 (Cathrin) Action item: Implementation note “review should be implemented as soon as possible and at the latest within 6 months” should be reviewed to factor in section 4.6 of the ICANN Bylaws where the ICANN Board has six months within receipt of the final report to consider the review team’s recommendations. and to consider he review team’s recommendations. SG.1 (Alan) Action item: Alan to add clarification as well as a reference to the RAA 2013 section 3.2. CM.1 (Susan) Action item: Rephrase the recommendation so that the board decide how to best implement this recommendation. CM.3 (Susan) Action item: Review team to use the GAC term, which is underserved regions, as there are some conflicting views on Global South. CM.5 (Susan) Action item: Clarify in recommendation what a “risk base approach is”. Stephanie provided: “A risk-based approach simply means that you do a risk assessment before you take an action to determine whether it’s really necessary.” Kind regards, Jean-Baptiste From: RDS-WHOIS2-RT <rds-whois2-rt-bounces(a)icann.org> on behalf of Jean-Baptiste Deroulez <jean-baptiste.deroulez(a)icann.org> Date: Wednesday, December 12, 2018 at 8:32 AM To: RDS WHOIS2-RT List <RDS-WHOIS2-RT(a)icann.org> Subject: [RDS-WHOIS2-RT] ICANN org input Dear RDS-WHOIS2, ICANN Org has reviewed the 23 recommendations in the draft report and would like to highlight areas that would benefit from clarification, as you work toward finalizing the recommendations. The input you will find below is not intended to discuss the merit of recommendations, but rather identifies elements for your consideration as you process public comment and shape your final recommendations. We note that you have assigned priority levels to each recommendation. In absence of a definition of what these entail, we would recommend factoring the impact of EPDP, GDPR, and need for community input etc. into the establishment of priority levels. In the context of your strategic priority related recommendation 1.1, we would like to call your attention to an initiative ICANN launched in April 2018 – see https://www.icann.org/news/blog/improving-our-planning-and-preparation [icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_news_blo…> that seeks to “identify legislative efforts across the globe early-on to raise awareness within ICANN and consider potential impacts, including how these legislative initiatives may have unintended consequences, which may be avoided”. The reports issued to date can be found at: https://www.icann.org/legislative-report [icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_legislat…>. Additional context can be found at: https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2018-08-30-en [icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_news_ann…>. We believe this may be in alignment with the improvements you suggested. On recommendation 3.1 (outreach), a clarification from the review team on whether it has insights into the user requirements for web documentation and what these are would be a great addition to the report to help determine specific needs. A review and feedback of current compliance related webpages would also be useful to evaluate any potential improvements needed. On recommendation 11.1 (common interface), based on the review team’s suggested implementation, it appears that the metrics and SLAs asked for in the recommendation are intended for use by ICANN org as mechanisms to proactively identify compliance issues. ICANN org would like to note that there are multiple reasons queries could return blank fields, or no results. It is not possible programmatically to determine the causes of these results. Additionally, per the Temporary Specification, gTLD registration data results could differ between registry and registrar outputs. Therefore, inconsistencies in registrar and registry gTLD registration data outputs are not necessarily compliance issues. ICANN org would also like to inform the RDS-WHOIS2 review team that the existing WHOIS look-up tool at whois.icann.org will be updated in the coming months with a new tool built on RDAP. It is possible and intended that the new tool would function in such a way that no data would be collected by ICANN org. On law enforcement recommendations (LE.1 – LE.2), indication from the review team on what “regular” refers to would constitute helpful guidance on timing of data gathering efforts. In addition, we would encourage the review team to refine the scope of the surveys to bring additional clarity to their purpose. On safeguarding registrant data (SG.1), we would recommend clarifying how the recommended action would differ from Principle 1(f) of Article 5 of the GDPR, and whether the review team meant to refer to baseline requirements (vs. uniform requirements). ICANN Org notes that section 3.2 of the 2013 RAA currently requires Registrars to notify ICANN within 7 days of any unauthorized access to or disclosure of registrant account information or registration data. With respect to compliance related recommendations, we would remind the review team for 4.1 and 4.2 that actions to mitigate are contracted parties’ prerogative and sanctions are unfeasible based on the current policies/contracts. On CM.1 we also wish to flag that the WHOIS Accuracy Program Specification of the 2013 RAA states that if Registrar does not receive an affirmative response from the Registered Name Holder, the Registrar shall either verify the applicable contact information manually or suspend the registration, until such time as Registrar has verified the applicable contact information. On CM.3, we would also would recommend using the GAC terms of “underserved regions” instead of “global south”, as some stakeholders may view global south as not representative of their region and there are conflicting views on the use of the term Global South outside of ICANN. In addition, we believe clarifications on the following would be helpful to provide further detail and context: · On CM.1, How would the review team expect the determination of the best path forward to be made? · On CM.3, What does “regions” refer to – i.e. registered domain name holder, registrar/record, or reporter? How is it anticipated that the review of registration data for a sample of names will yield insight into awareness of reporting tools in each of the regions? · On CM.5, what would be the envisioned timeline, form (e.g. initiated PDP), and topic a potential PDP would be expected to address? Could the review team clarify what a “risk-based approach” refers to? What new RDS policies is the review team referring to? How would the GNSO be expected to incorporate these requirements for measurement, auditing, tracking, reporting and enforcement in all new RDS policies? Per Section 4.6 [icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_resource…>of ICANN Bylaws, the ICANN Board has six months within receipt of the final report to consider the review team’s recommendations. We would suggest factoring this into implementation details you include in your recommendations (see 1.1 – 1.2 – 1.3 – 15.1 – LE.1 – LE.2). We hope you find this feedback helpful and welcome any follow-up questions or comments you may have. We thank you for all of your efforts in finalizing your recommendations and in supplementing them with additional detail. Thank you, Best regards ICANN org

1 0

Plenary Call #47 | 28 January 2019 | 15:00 - 16:30 UTC
by Jean-Baptiste Deroulez Jan. 28, 2019

Jan. 28, 2019

Dear review team members, In preparation for your plenary call #47<https://community.icann.org/x/oIQWBg>, scheduled for Monday 28 January at 15:00-16:30 UTC, please find the below meeting agenda: 1. Welcome, roll-call, SoI 2. Review of Draft Report Updates · WHOIS1 Rec #2: Single WHOIS Policy · WHOIS1 Rec #3: Outreach · WHOIS1 Rec #4: Compliance · WHOIS1 Recs #5-9: Data Accuracy · WHOIS1 Rec #11: Common Interface · Objective 5: Safeguarding Registrant Data · Objective 6: ICANN Contractual Compliance Actions, Structure and Processes 1. A.O.B. Kind regards, Jean-Baptiste

3 4

Fwd: Question for ICANN Org regarding Registrant Contact Information
by Alan Greenberg Jan. 28, 2019

Jan. 28, 2019

Note that the following question that I am recommending the EPDP pose to ICANN Org has a direct implication on whether we issue Recommendation CM.2. Alan To: EPDP <gnso-epdp-team(a)icann.org> From: Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca> Subject: Question for ICANN Org regarding Registrant Contact Information As requested, here is the draft question to the ICANN org regarding the implications of deleting the RDS Administrative fields. Alan =============== The EPDP is contemplating deleting the RDS elements associated with the Administrative and Billing Contact name and contact information (the Billing fields are not currently published and so there will be no impact). If this were to be done, the Registrant contact information would be the only remaining contact fields for the entity responsible for the registration. Under the 2009 RAA, Registrant email and telephone contacts were optional and so may not have been collected. 21013 RAA, under Data Retention Specification 1.1 says: 1.1. Registrar shall collect the following information from registrants at the time of registration of a domain name (a ?Registration?) and shall maintain that information for the duration of Registrar?s sponsorship of the Registration and for a period of two additional years thereafter: 1.1.1. First and last name or full legal name of registrant; 1.1.2. First and last name or, in the event registrant is a legal person, the title of the registrant?s administrative contact, technical contact, and billing contact; 1.1.3. Postal address of registrant, administrative contact, technical contact, and billing contact; 1.1.4. Email address of registrant, administrative contact, technical contact, and billing contact; 1.1.5. Telephone contact for registrant, administrative contact, technical contact, and billing contact; ..... Since the 2013 RAA was first available in mid-2013, and RAAs must be renewed every five year, as of mid-2018, there should be no registrars operating under the 2009 RAA. The EPDP is requesting that ICANN Org confirm that all registrars are now operating under the 2013 RAA. The EPDP is requesting that ICANN Org provide its interpretation of the requirement under the RAA Data retention Specification 1.1 whether registrars, as part of their adoption of the 2013 RAA, are required to ensure that Registrant contact email and telephone fields are completed, or whether the phrase "shall maintain that information" (which was validly allowed to be blank at registration time) allows them to preserve any empty Registrant contact fields. If the former, is Contractual Compliance taking any action to ensure that registrars fulfill this obligation?

2 1

Plenary Call #47 | 21 January 2019 | 15:00 - 16:30 UTC
by Jean-Baptiste Deroulez Jan. 21, 2019

Jan. 21, 2019

Dear review team members, In preparation for your plenary call #47<https://community.icann.org/display/WHO/Meeting+%2347+-+21+January+2019+@+1…>, scheduled for today, 21 January at 15:00-16:30 UTC, please find the below meeting agenda: 1. Welcome, roll-call, SoI 2. Review of Draft Report Updates 3. Recommendations Status 4. A.O.B. Kind regards, Jean-Baptiste

2 1

Call Monday, Jan 21
by Erika Mann Jan. 21, 2019

Jan. 21, 2019

Hi team - I will be very likely not able to join the call. Apologies. Erika

3 2

IMPORTANT: Plenary Call #46 | 14 January 2019 | 15:00 - 16:30 UTC
by Jean-Baptiste Deroulez Jan. 21, 2019

Jan. 21, 2019

Dear review team members, Following up on today’s call decisions reached and action items, review team members/subject matter experts are invited to * review with care their sections in the report (looking for errors, inconsistencies) * confirm the section is consistent and tight, by Friday 18 January 2019 23:59 UTC. (Extra day allowed for Stephanie, considering the ePDP meeting) * come up with suggestions before plenary call #47 as to how the sections can be cleaned up. The attached suggested updates were accepted by members in presence, see minor updates, decisions reached and action items below, please share any concerns you may have before Friday January 2019, 23:59: * WHOIS1 Rec #1 - Strategic Priority Decisions reached: Agreement from members in attendance with rationale for R1.1, R1.2. Action item: R1.1, R1.2 Implementation section should say "working group" not "Working Group" Action item: R1.3: should say "working group" not "Working Group" * Subgroup 3 - Law Enforcement Needs Action item: Jackie emphasize the "at minimum" sentence in rationale. Replace the "or" at the end of the 4th line with an "and". * WHOIS1 Rec #11: Common Interface Decisions reached: New text: R11.2: The ICANN Board should direct the ICANN organization to ensure that the common interface displays all applicable output for each gTLD domain name registration as available from contracted parties, including multiple versions when the outputs from registry and registrar differs. The common interface should be updated to address any policy or contractual changes to maintain full functionality. * WHOIS1 Rec #4: Compliance Action item: Under “Possible Impact GDPR and other applicable laws” Alan to add a paragraph on current situation pointing out the paradox of goodwill vs doing it properly. Add sentence on whether contractual compliance can verify compliance if they can't look at the data. * A.O.B. Plenary call is confirmed next week, updates from each subject matter expert will be presented. Kind regards, Jean-Baptiste From: RDS-WHOIS2-RT <rds-whois2-rt-bounces(a)icann.org> on behalf of Jean-Baptiste Deroulez <jean-baptiste.deroulez(a)icann.org> Date: Monday, January 14, 2019 at 2:12 PM To: RDS WHOIS2-RT List <rds-whois2-rt(a)icann.org> Subject: Re: [RDS-WHOIS2-RT] Plenary Call #46 | 14 January 2019 | 15:00 - 16:30 UTC Dear review team members, In preparation for today’s plenary call, please find attached the supporting slides. Kind regards, Jean-Baptiste From: RDS-WHOIS2-RT <rds-whois2-rt-bounces(a)icann.org> on behalf of Jean-Baptiste Deroulez <jean-baptiste.deroulez(a)icann.org> Date: Friday, January 11, 2019 at 7:05 PM To: RDS WHOIS2-RT List <rds-whois2-rt(a)icann.org> Subject: [RDS-WHOIS2-RT] Plenary Call #46 | 14 January 2019 | 15:00 - 16:30 UTC Dear review team members, In preparation for your plenary call #46<https://community.icann.org/x/doQWBg>, scheduled for Monday, 14 January at 15:00-16:30 UTC, please find the below meeting agenda: 1. Welcome, roll-call, SoI 2. Updates review: · WHOIS1 Rec #1 - Strategic Priority · Subgroup 3 - Law Enforcement Needs · Objective 6: ICANN Contractual Compliance Actions, Structure and Processes · + Any other submitted updates 3. A.O.B. Thank you for reviewing the previously shared action items list and completing any items assigned to you. As always, let us know if you have any questions or concerns. Kind regards, Jean-Baptiste

2 3

Question for Lili
by Alan Greenberg Jan. 14, 2019

Jan. 14, 2019

Lili, on page 8 of https://docs.google.com/document/d/1chwFH3xDdVJgoxE-osDlRcbKPKK35iUk2AK3c42…, in section labelled 5 you say the high number of errors going to 1stor further notice implies registrars are not validating in breach of agreement. Is this the case. I would have thought the vast majority were registrations that pre-date the requirement to validate. Am I missing something? Alan

2 1