I tend to agree with Alan's analysis here. I would also suggest that we look at the Internationalisation of WHOIS as part of this scope. -Carlton ============================== *Carlton A Samuels* *Mobile: 876-818-1799Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround* ============================= On Mon, Jun 26, 2017 at 11:00 PM, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> wrote:
In preparation for the meeting tomorrow, I would like to explain why I feel that we should limit our scope to an in depth review of the first WHOIS-RT recommendations and their implementation. This is specifically called for in section (iv) of the Bylaw governing this review:
*The Directory Service Review Team shall assess the extent to which prior Directory Service Review recommendations have been implemented and the extent to which implementation of such recommendations has resulted in the intended effect. *As the first phase of this, MSSI should, with the support of the appropriate ICANN departments, prepare a full assessment of the WHOIS_RT Recommendations and their implementation, and do so prior to our first formal face-to-face meeting.
Any future replacement for WHOIS is being discussed in the GNSO Next-Generation RDS PDP and is clearly our of scope. Privacy issues with the current WHOIS are clearly an issue, but I do not believe that this RT is the proper place to design any "fix" to meet GDPR issues, n ot would our time-frame meet requirements to act in the next several months.
The GNSO has suggested nine focus areas that we should look at, and I would like to review them here.
1. Assess whether the RDS efforts currently underway in the ICANN community are on target to meet the “legitimate needs of law enforcement, promoting consumer trust and safeguarding registrant data.”
The prime RDS effort is the GNSO PDP. Given that the PDP is not at a stage to make any recommendations, I do see how we could assess its outcomes. If indeed it is thought to be in trouble, it is the sole responsibility of the GNSO to take action. A RT recommendation to the Board cannot do that.
2. Assess the RDS efforts currently underway (or planned in the near term), for the purpose of making recommendations regarding how they might be improved and better coordinated.
Again, I do not know what crystal ball we have to do this.
3. Ongoing work by the Privacy and Proxy Services Accreditation Issues Implementation Review Team (see Recommendation 10 of the 2012 WHOIS Review Team Final Report).
To the extent that this is an aspect of a previous WHOIS-RT recommendation, it falls within the purview of the review of the last RT's work
4. Progress of cross validation implementation (see Recommendations 6 and 7, 2012 WHOIS Review Team Final Report).
Same here.
5. Review compliance enforcement actions, structure and processes (see Recommendation 4, 2012 WHOIS Review Team Final Report).
Same here.
6. Availability of transparent data concerning enforcement of contractual obligations of WHOIS.
I am not sure exactly what this means, but it may well fall within the reasonable purview of this RT.
7. Assess the value and timing of RDAP as a replacement protocol.
Although RDAP, or an evolution of it, is a likely choice for implementing a future RDS, I do not see how we can assess the value of RDAP without having the specific requirements for that RDS. In terms of timing, if the current RDAP ends up being sufficient, timing is not an issue, and if it required enhancement, the timing is not something that we are really equipped to predict.
8. To the extent time and bandwidth permit, evaluate the effectiveness of any other steps ICANN has taken to implement Recommendations 3-11 of the 2012 WHOIS Review Team Final Report.
Agreed.
9. Ensure no duplication of work that is the responsibility of the GNSO’s RDS Policy Development Process Working Group.
Agreed.
Alan
_______________________________________________ RDS-WHOIS2-RT mailing list RDS-WHOIS2-RT@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/rds-whois2-rt