Dear Alan and all, Thank you and all for your efforts on the public engagement session during ICANN62. I did follow the video recording of the engagement session, and the comments from Mr Michele Neylon and Ms Kathy Kleiman on findings and recommendations of Data Accuracy Subgroup have been duly noted. Regarding Michele's comment, I was disappointed that people tend to illustrate the recommendation 4.7 in such an emotional way. The recommendation aims to target registrar which couldn't show proof of validating and/or verifying Whois data and was exposed by ARS project, as the rationale of this recommendation indicated. Furthermore, I doubt the possibility of Michele's extremely example. If anyone who is against a registrar, register a domain name using deliberately falsified Whois data, and then lodge a complaint against the registrar subsequently, showing the failure of validation and verification, that's a demonstration of how fragile the current validation and verification is. Regarding Kathy's comment, I have to say that her assumption was the Whois data has association with the registrant, then the objective of data accuracy is format correct and reachable (or may be contactable. As non-native English speaker, I couldn't differentiate between them in this context). Otherwise, I could just copy any public contact info crawling from internet for domain registration, which is perfectly contactable, but has no meaning for Whois service. But is the assumption valid? The purpose of validation and verification is to make sure the Whois data has association with the registrant, is format correct and contactable. I'm also very curious about the details of the "800,000 domains failed due to verification" Kathy mentioned. Is it possible to have details from ICANN? Thanks, Lili -----Original Message----- From: RDS-WHOIS2-RT [mailto:rds-whois2-rt-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Alan Greenberg Sent: Sunday, 1 July, 2018 12:51 PM To: RDS-WHOIS2-RT <rds-whois2-rt@icann.org> Subject: [RDS-WHOIS2-RT] Report on public session With one exception, the public session went reasonably well. We had a good number of people in the room. At the start of the session, slide 7 which had the coloured list of objectives displayed blank. I started reading what should have been displayed from a copy with really small sized font, and Susan turned around her laptop to show the audience what they should have been seeing. After a good number of minutes, the graphic finally loaded. The "exception" was that Stephanie was sitting at the far end of the table of speakers and I had not seen her come in, and could not see her at the table. So I presumed that she had been delayed and did not introduce her to talk about her section. No one else interrupted me, so I ended up briefly presenting Anything New. I only was told that she was there a day later. I offer my sincere apologies to Stephanie for this mistake, and take full responsibility for it. Not surprisingly, due to the amount of material on our slides, we ran over our allotted time for the presentation, but still had sufficient time for all questions. The highlight was Michele Neylon noticing Compliance recommendation 4.7 which reads:
Draft Recommendation (R4.7): Following a valid WHOIS ARS ticket, or WHOIS inaccuracy complaint, initiate a full audit targeting the relating registrar to check if the registrar follows the contractual obligations, the consensus policies, etc. Sanctions should be applied if deficiencies identified.
He was pointing out that triggering a full audit based on ONE accuracy complaint might not be the wisest thing to recommend. I recommend everyone listening to his rant. It was marvellous and on the face of it he may well have a point. See https://audio.icann.org/meetings/pty62/pty62-OPEN-2018-06-28-T2149-salon1-en..., from 1:18:27 to 1:23:24. Alan _______________________________________________ RDS-WHOIS2-RT mailing list RDS-WHOIS2-RT@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/rds-whois2-rt *************************************************************************************************** This message, and any attachment contained, are confidential and subject of legal privilege. It may be used solely for the designated police/justice purpose and by the individual or entity to whom it is addressed. The information is not to be disseminated to another agency or third party without the author’s consent, and must not be retained longer than is necessary for the fulfilment of the purpose for which the information is to be used. All practicable steps shall be taken by the recipients to ensure that information is protected against unauthorised access or processing. INTERPOL reserves the right to enquire about the use of the information provided. If you are not the intended recipient, be advised that you have received this message in error. In such a case, you should not print it, copy it, make any use of it or disclose it, but please notify us immediately and delete the message from any computer. *************************************************************************************************