June 2011 - Rt4-whois - lists.icann.org

Re: [Rt4-whois] Initial RFP Draft for Consumer Trust research
by lynn＠goodsecurityconsulting.com June 22, 2011

June 22, 2011

2 1

Fwd: [At-Large] New discussion started at the IETF on a WHOIS-like standard
by Omar Kaminski June 22, 2011

June 22, 2011

FYI ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Patrick Vande Walle <patrick(a)vande-walle.eu> Date: 2011/6/22 Subject: [At-Large] New discussion started at the IETF on a WHOIS-like standard To: At-Large Worldwide <at-large(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org>, whois-wg(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org Dear colleagues, Some have started another run at whois. The effort is intended to address the shortcomings of whois and also to get people to deploy the result. IRIS succeeded, unfortunately, only at one of these. There are a few groups on the Internet who have put together a whois-like service using REST. The idea behind the current effort is to standardize something along these lines. We have some drafts: http://tools.ietf.org/id/weirds [1]. There is also an IETF non-WG mailing list: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/weirds [2]. I think it might be useful if some folks from the At-Large community could participate in the discussion. It would be weird to complain later on that engineers did not take our requirements into consideration if we do not tell them from the start what we expect from a new WHOIS like system. Note that this is about the WHOIS standard, not the WHOIS service as such. But obviously, you need the standard should be able to deliver the service we want. Regards, Patrick Vande Walle -- Blog: http://patrick.vande-walle.eu Twitter: http://twitter.vande-walle.eu Links: ------ [1] http://tools.ietf.org/id/weirds [2] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/weirds _______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org

1 0

Initial RFP Draft for Consumer Trust research
by lynn＠goodsecurityconsulting.com June 22, 2011

June 22, 2011

4 10

Rob Golding's input - Session with RrSG & RySG
by Alice Jansen June 22, 2011

June 22, 2011

Dear Review Team Members, Please see below input received from Rob Golding. As you might recall, Rob was participating remotely in your session with the RySG and RrSG. Thank you, Very best regards Alice > >On 6/22/11 9:30 AM, "Rob Golding" <rob.golding(a)othellotech.net> wrote: > >>I'm "remote", but we have a complete response to all the whois questions >>... >>numbered as per their points - its 2.30am in the UK ... >> >>> 1) The unfortunate situation we find ourselves in, is that the WHOIS >>> element has been vastly skewed from its original purpose. LEAs wish it >>> to be a single stop shop for identifying criminals (rarely the case), >>> mass-marketers (read: spammers) simply mine it for more hapless >>>victims, >>> goverments and others cannot simply comprehend that a domain >>> registration is entirely separated from the services offered from FQDNs >>> at that domain. >>> >>> ICANN and by extension registrar _must_ re-iterate the appropriate >>> responsibilities of each party regarding WHOIS. i.e. the actual data >>>is >>> the responsibility of the registrant, the registrar must provide >>> universal access to it, ICANN oversees that the registrar sends >>> reminders and does actually provide access to the data. >>> >>> This has additional knock-on effects which must be recognised in other >>> ICANN dealings and policies; e.g. as the registrant is responsible for >>> the data in the WHOIS service, LEAs/Governments cannot impose >>> _publisher_ restrictions or crimes upon registrars. >>> >>> ICANN must also impress upon other stakeholders i.e. the GAC and LEAs, >>> that the WHOIS service and the data contained therein, is at best >>> informational. Data held in the WHOIS cannot be construed to imply >>> relationships, contracts etc. and that registrars are ultimately >>> responsible to their commercial customers - which is not necessarily >>>the >>> party named in WHOIS. >>> >>> 2) Simply put, ICANN should set and stand-by an agreed use for the >>>WHOIS >>> service. Originally its purpose was clear, and greatly aided in the >>> technical operation of the internet. That purpose was significantly >>> muddled to the point where it is almost useless for its original >>>purpose. >>> >>> 3) We have daily exposure to the WHOIS policies for .uk, which is >>> tightly coupled both contractually and legally with the UK legal >>>system. >>> This makes controlling the data and purpose significantly easier as >>> there are enforcible contract terms (with the named registrant) to >>> delete/suspend the registration in the event of poor data quality. Due >>> to the disseparate nature of the gTLD system this is either poorly >>> defined or non-existant. At this late stage it would be considered >>> unfair and/or impossible to impose this kind of restrictions and >>> penalties for the vast populus. >>> >>> 4) This is simple. ICANN already requires the registrars to escrow >>> unprotected data. This public WHOIS data may be protected at the >>> registrant's request. Other users (i.e. LEAs) should show appropriate >>> court orders for access to the protected data when there is a clear >>>need. >>> >>> 5) It shouldn't. As long as the registrar is fufilling its escrow >>> obligations, privacy services are a commercial consideration between >>> them and their customers. There are already established legal methods >>> for revealing this data. >>> >>> 6) They aren't; registrars still regularly block/restrict and/or >>>disable >>> RADAR registered connections. Registrants are still allowed to provide >>> clearly incorrect data. >>> >>> 7) In two words, Data Quality. Registrars must rely on the information >>> provided by their customers. Largely there is no international method >>> for validation - and even so would drastically increase costs to do so. >>> We do not have any kind of international verification for postal >>>codes >>> to city for example. Whilst there are systems and validations for each >>> nation-state's system, this is not universal. >>> >>> 8) Swift and effective notification and consequences imposed when >>> required. We recognise the need for a fair amount of time to remedy >>> breaches - less so for registrants to change details but more so for >>> correcting software defects at the registrars. However, unless the >>> consequences are universally understood as certain - there will always >>> be certain quarters that will flaunt the rules. Even if a majority of >>> registrar commit to a unified code of conduct, we would be committing >>> commercial suicide as registrants would flock to those allowing them to >>> flaunt the rules or avoid their registration being removed for false >>> data. >>> >>> 9) ICANN compliance with the registrars must complete their work in a >>> timely manner. If this requires more resources then fine. However it >>> cannot 'obtain' any new powers to enforce rules on registrants. It is >>> not a 3rd party to the commercial contracts. This element of >>>compliance >>> must be handled by registrars, however unless it is employed 100% it >>> will never be effective. >>> >>> 10) I doubt it can. >>> >>> 11) No ccTLD has cracked this issue. >>> >>> 12) Yes; the more compliant a registrar attempts to become, the more >>> costs they incur - in development, customer contact or commercial >>> deficit (losing business to other registrars who simply don't care). >>> >>> 13) Largely nothing. There are still on-going compliance issues >>>causing >>> daily problems for transfers between registrars. Maybe after six to >>> nine months will a registrar lose their accreditation - but usually >>>this >>> is over fees rather than compliance. >>> >> >> >

1 0

WEDNESDAY - Where do I need to be today?
by Alice Jansen June 21, 2011

June 21, 2011

09:00-11:00 Registries Stakeholder Group (RySG) & Registrar Stakeholder Group (RrSG) Sophia 11:00-12:30 Governmental Advisory Committee Collyer 14:30-16:00 Interaction with the Community Canning 16:00-18:00 Internal Debriefing Moor

1 0

Your sessions: material, recordings etc
by Alice Jansen June 21, 2011

June 21, 2011

Dear RT Members, Please note that material and recordings of your sessions are available at: https://community.icann.org/display/whoisreview/Singapore+Meeting Transcripts will be posted as soon as received. Thank you, Very best regards Alice

2 1

Budget request
by Denise Michel June 21, 2011

June 21, 2011

Dear Team Members, Your budget request was approved by the Board Finance Committee and a resolution will be added to the Board's agenda for approval on Friday (as part of the consent agenda). Olof and I will follow-up with Lynn to ensure we move quickly on the RFP after this action is taken. Regards, Denise

6 6

Re: [Rt4-whois] Where do I need to be today? TUESDAY
by James M. Bladel June 21, 2011

June 21, 2011

1 0

Slides from Compliance Staff meeting
by Denise Michel June 20, 2011

June 20, 2011

Dear Team members, Attached please find the Power Point presentation used by ICANN Compliance Staff in yesterday's meeting with the Team's Compliance Subteam. Regards, Denise Denise Michel ICANN Advisor to the President & CEO denise.michel(a)icann.org +1.408.429.3072 mobile +1.310.578.8632 direct

1 0

interaction with SSAC
by Dr.Sarmad Hussain June 20, 2011

June 20, 2011

Dear Emily and all, Here are possible questions which we can ask SSAC, in addition to the questions based from the Discussion Paper we circulated: 1. What are technical challenges/gaps in the implementation of WHOIS protocol? 2. What impact do these technical issues have on the use of WHOIS services? 3. How can the technical challenges/gaps be addressed? Let me know if these are OK. I will communicate these to SSAC, based on your feedback. regards, Sarmad

2 1