February 2012 - Rt4-whois - lists.icann.org

Draft Report Recommendations
by Denise Michel Feb. 12, 2012

Feb. 12, 2012

Dear Team Members, I've had a cross-functional Staff team review the draft report recommendations. We have a number of items for which clarification is needed, and have identified some implementation challenges that require more consideration. At this point it would be valuable if a few Staff could have an informal conference call with the Team or, if you prefer, a sub-set of the Team (perhaps members who held the pen on recommendations?), and discuss the recommendations. This would enable Staff to have a clear understanding of the Team's intent, and give the Team insight into the potential implementation challenges with which we're grappling. If this is amendable, I'll have Alice follow-up on call details. It would be most helpful if we could schedule this next week. 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

3 2

FW: Updated GNSO Council meeting draft agenda 16 February 2012 at 15:00.
by Kathy Kleiman Feb. 12, 2012

Feb. 12, 2012

Hi All, FYI that the issue of the Thick Whois, the very issue we are working on as well, is up for discussion in the upcoming GNSO Council meeting on 2/16. Best, Kathy ----------------------------------------------------------- *From:* owner-liaison6c(a)gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-liaison6c@gnso.icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Glen de Saint Géry …………………………………………………………………………………… *Agenda**for GNSO Council Meeting – 16 February 2012* http://gnso.icann.org/meetings/agenda-council-16feb12-en.htm *Wiki agenda :* https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Agenda+16+February+… *** Excerpted...**** _Meeting Time 15:00 UTC <http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/fixedtime.html?msg=GNSO+Council+meeti…>_ Coordinated Universal Time: 15:00 UTC 07:00 Los Angeles; 10:00 Washington DC; 15:00 London; 16:00 Paris; 00:00 Tokyo; *_Item 3: 'thick' Whois Final Issue Report (10 minutes)_* As recommended by the IRTP Part B Working Group, the GNSO Council requested ICANN Staff to prepare an Issue Report on the requirement of ‘thick’ WHOIS for all incumbent gTLDs. The Preliminary Issue Report was published for public comment (see http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-2-21nov11-en.htm) Staff has now submitted the Final Issue Report, <http://gnso.icann.org/issues/whois/final-report-thick-whois-02feb12-en.pdf> which includes the report of comments received and additional updates as a result of the comments made. The GNSO Council will now consider the Final Issue Report <http://gnso.icann.org/issues/whois/final-report-thick-whois-02feb12-en.pdf> and decide whether or not to initiate a PDP. 3.1 Presentation of Final Issue Report <http://gnso.icann.org/issues/whois/final-report-thick-whois-02feb12-en.pdf> (Marika Konings) http://gnso.icann.org/issues/whois/final-report-thick-whois-02feb12-en.pdf Refer to motion: https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Motions+16+February… 3.2 Reading of the motion (Stéphane Van Gelder) 3.3 Discussion 3.3 Vote

4 3

Re: [Rt4-whois] Questions on Recommendation 17
by Emily Taylor Feb. 8, 2012

Feb. 8, 2012

Forgive a personal opinion here, but I would imagine on the "portal" model which I think we're proposing that the underlying data would be subject to whatever rate limits are in place with the registrar of record. You're just going in to the Port 43, grabbing the data, and displaying it in an easy to understand way. Tons of sites already do this. They may place their own rate limits there - to prevent WHOIS abuse, and spammer harvesting type activity. I don't see this recommendation as requiring a wholesale rethink of current policies. On 8 February 2012 18:31, Seth M Reiss <seth.reiss(a)lex-ip.com> wrote: > I am not sure why the AoC could not trump Consensus Policy if that is what > ICANN intended when it signed the AoC. I am not saying this is a desirable > result on this issue – that the AoC intended to set aside the Whois > Marketing Restricting Policy – I suspect most of us would want that policy > retained; but the question of whether the AoC can be construed to require > changes to policies, agreements and the like is probably a question > implicating the interaction of contract and corporate law in this > instance. One cannot simply say that the AoC is subservient to all policy > created to date. We do not question that the AoC potentially implicates > changes to the RAA, for example. So why could it not also implicate > changes to a consensus policy? How we get there without running afoul of > the ICANN articles and bylaws is probably a separate question.**** > > ** ** > > Seth **** > > ** ** > > *From:* rt4-whois-bounces(a)icann.org [mailto:rt4-whois-bounces@icann.org] *On > Behalf Of *Kathy Kleiman > *Sent:* Wednesday, February 08, 2012 7:57 AM > > *To:* Lutz Donnerhacke > *Cc:* rt4-whois(a)icann.org > *Subject:* Re: [Rt4-whois] Questions on Recommendation 17**** > > ** ** > > Lutz wrote: > > **** > > Yes, that's the reasoning behind the proposal: The AoC urges ICANN to**** > > provide such an unrestricted access. Unfortunly many registries does rate**** > > limit the access or does not provide all the required data.**** > > Hi Lutz, > Yes, the registrars and registries rate limit because they feel required > to. It is part of the Whois Marketing Restriction Policy of 2004 -- one of > the few bright spots of the type of consensus from the GNSO we have been > looking for -- that bars registries and registrars from allowing data > mining of the Whois databases for spam, other forms of unwanted > advertising, profiling, etc. (Quote from our draft report, chapter 3, is > below.) Rate limiting is a tried and true way of preventing data mining, > as you know. > > *So here's a followup question: Are we saying, somehow, that the language > of the AOC trumps and takes precedence over this Consensus Policy? If so, > I think we really need to spell it out for the community and the GNSO. > > *But somehow, I don't think we meant to overturn this marketing > restriction policy. As I have mentioned, I think we should be very > carefully of recommended specific technical fixes -- but lay out the > problem, and the need for a solution, and allow the Community to find it. > > Chapter 3 Excerpt: > "WHOIS Marketing Restriction Policy: This policy, a combination of two > distinct GNSO policy recommendations, creates two policy changes to the > Registrar Accreditation Agreement: > a. Registrars must require third parties “to agree not to use the [Whois] > data to allow, enable, or otherwise support any marketing activities.” > b. Registrars must “agree not to sell or redistribute the [Whois] data” > (with some exceptions). http://www.icann.org/en/registrars/wmrp.htm*" > > Best, > Kathy > * > > **** > > -- **** > > ** ** > > ** ** > > > _______________________________________________ > Rt4-whois mailing list > Rt4-whois(a)icann.org > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/rt4-whois > > -- * * 76 Temple Road, Oxford OX4 2EZ UK t: +44 (0)1865 582 811 • m: +44 (0)7540 049 322 emily(a)emilytaylor.eu *www.etlaw.co.uk* Emily Taylor Consultancy Limited is a company registered in England and Wales No. 7630471. VAT No. 114487713.

1 0

Questions on Recommendation 17
by Kathy Kleiman Feb. 8, 2012

Feb. 8, 2012

Hi Lutz and All, At long last, I want to circle back to the Data Access Recommendation and ask questions that have been banging around in my head for awhile. I wanted to wait awhile until after our marathon editing sessions and the holidays. But first, a huge congratulations to Susan for the Facebook initial public offering. I am so hoping you are one of the hundreds of new millionaires I am hearing about on the news! (No need to tell us... that's private data :-) ) Here are my questions to Lutz and all advocating the Data Access recommendation (in its two versions) now in our report and listed below. As I understand it, we are recommending a "dedicated, multilingual website" to provide thick Whois data (for thin gTLD registries, in one variation, and all gTLD registries in the other): 1. What is the underlying data structure of this website? Is all the information going to be gathered into and run out of a California database run and owned by ICANN? 2. Alternatively, might it be a website run by ICANN offering links to the registries and registrars who hold the full Whois data? 3. Do you think this would become the place in which all people search for all gTLD whois data? If so, could there be a scalability problem if all people (law enforcement, domain name purchasers, etc) go to one website for all Whois searches? Is there some liability to ICANN should such a site go down? 4. Are we advocating a particular policy/technical solution or is the implementation open to discussion in the GNSO and other policy groups within ICANN? Report section below. Thanks so much for any and everyone's answers to the questions above -- addressed to Lutz as the founder of this recommendation. All the best, Kathy p.s. Data Access recommendation: "Data Access – Common Interface 17. To improve access to the Whois data of .COM and .NET gTLDs, the only remaining Thin Registries, ICANN should set up a dedicated, multilingual interface website to provide thick WHOIS data for them. ALTERNATIVE for public comment: To make WHOIS data more accessible for consumers, ICANN should set up a dedicated, multilingual interface website to allow "unrestricted and public access to accurate and complete WHOIS information". Such interface should provide thick WHOIS data for all gTLD domain names." --

4 9

Re: [Rt4-whois] Questions on Recommendation 17
by Smith, Bill Feb. 8, 2012

Feb. 8, 2012

I'm with Seth. The AoC seems clear On Feb 6, 2012, at 11:13 AM, "Seth M Reiss" <seth.reiss(a)lex-ip.com> wrote: > Let's let the AoC speaks for itself. > > "ICANN additionally commits to enforcing its existing policy relating to > WHOIS, subject to applicable laws. Such existing policy requires that ICANN > implement measures to maintain timely, unrestricted and public access to > accurate and complete WHOIS information, including registrant, technical, > billing, and administrative contact information." > > Doesn't say that ICANN should play the operation role and it doesn't say > that ICANN should not. ICANN is required to implement measures to effect an > adequate result. I do recall discussing a portal, not sure if that was in > terms of ICANN operating the portal or ICANN contracting a third party to, > or maybe discussing both. > > Seth > > -----Original Message----- > From: rt4-whois-bounces(a)icann.org [mailto:rt4-whois-bounces@icann.org] On > Behalf Of Kathy Kleiman > Sent: Monday, February 06, 2012 5:20 AM > To: Lutz Donnerhacke > Cc: rt4-whois(a)icann.org > Subject: Re: [Rt4-whois] Questions on Recommendation 17 > > Hi Lutz, > Thank you for the detailed answers below. I am still working through > them and urge others to review them closely as well. I would very much > like to see the "all-whois" website you have been running since 1996 -- > would you be willing to share the link? > > There does seem to be a difference in how we view the AoC. I never saw > as **requiring ** ICANN to have an operational role in running websites, > and I don't remember such discussions in our meetings (did I sleep > through something?) I do remember discussing that ICANN -- with Whois > data as with so many other areas -- is responsible fo creating and > overseeing policies that implement the wording and goals of the AoC. > > I tend to have a sense that policy-making bodies are not great > operational bodies, and know there has been great push-back against > ICANN in other areas (e.g. the DNS-Cert discussion of 2010). > > I will send back more detailed comments shortly. Thank you for this > discussion online and, hopefully, in CR as well. And thanks for the link > to your website! > Best, > Kathy > > : >> On Fri, Feb 03, 2012 at 01:59:05PM -0500, Kathy Kleiman wrote: >>> I understand it, we are recommending a "dedicated, multilingual website" > to >>> provide thick Whois data (for thin gTLD registries, in one variation, and >>> all gTLD registries in the other): >> >> No, we are recommending a "dedicated, multilingual website" to provide a >> "centralized access to all whois data regardless of the underlying data >> structure". >> >>> 1. What is the underlying data structure of this website? Is all the >>> information going to be gathered into and run out of a California > database >>> run and owned by ICANN? >> No. The website traveresed the data structure down the chain of whois >> servers (starting at whois.iana.org) It does not store nor copy the whois >> data, besides some short time caching. >> >> It's similar to DNS: A recursive resolver does not copy and stores all the >> DNS records worldwide, but is able to obtain the necessary data on the > fly. >> >>> 2. Alternatively, might it be a website run by ICANN offering links to > the >>> registries and registrars who hold the full Whois data? >> No. The results should be present directly on this particular website in >> order to fulfill the requirements of the AoC literaly: >> >> maintain timely, unrestricted and public access to accurate and > complete >> WHOIS information, including registrant, technical, billing, and >> administrative contact information. >> >> In order to overcome the problems, shown by user experiance report, the >> website needs to be multilingual not only in terms of the user interface > but >> also in the presentation of the gathered data. >> >> Of course, the website needs to show the sources and the way how the >> information was obtained, where it is really stored and why. That's the >> minimal requirement from (my) understanding of (European) data protection >> laws. >> >>> 3. Do you think this would become the place in which all people search > for >>> all gTLD whois data? >> Yes, that's the intention of the proposal. >> >>> If so, could there be a scalability problem if all >>> people (law enforcement, domain name purchasers, etc) go to one website > for >>> all Whois searches? Is there some liability to ICANN should such a site > go >>> down? >> Yes, that's the reasoning behind the proposal: The AoC urges ICANN to >> provide such an unrestricted access. Unfortunly many registries does rate >> limit the access or does not provide all the required data. >> >> ICANN - as the operator of the proposed website - has the power to enforce >> it's own policies by using it's own contracts with the parties in > question. >> >> This way the proposal collapses the differences between real world and AoC >> at a single point within the organisation which is able to solve the > problem. >> >>> 4. Are we advocating a particular policy/technical solution or is the >>> implementation open to discussion in the GNSO and other policy groups >>> within ICANN? >> We - as a group - are limited to the such a proposal and might add some >> personal reasoning (like this). >> >> Personally I do run such an "all-whois" website since 1996 and do have > some >> ideas how it should be implemented and which operational policy should be >> enforced. But that's outside of our scope. >> > > > -- > > > > _______________________________________________ > Rt4-whois mailing list > Rt4-whois(a)icann.org > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/rt4-whois > > _______________________________________________ > Rt4-whois mailing list > Rt4-whois(a)icann.org > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/rt4-whois

2 2

Call with GAC next week
by Emily Taylor Feb. 7, 2012

Feb. 7, 2012

Hi Alice and Olof I am thinking about our GAC call next week, and wondering how many team members and GAC members are likely to be able to join, as it will be very early in Europe and very late in North America. I understand that sometimes the GAC do their coordination calls in two installments to suit Western and Eastern time zones. I was wondering whether we could suggest this format to see if we can get fuller participation than we are likely to have with the current slot. Please would RT members indicate whether or not they will be able to make the call, and Alice please would you explore this idea with the GAC secretariat. Kind regards Emily Sent from my iPad

1 0

FW: If you're suffering from insomnia
by LEMON, Sharon Feb. 7, 2012

Feb. 7, 2012

NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED Team, I hope you are well - READ THIS, it's brilliant. Sharon Sharon LEMON OBE Deputy Director Cyber and Forensics Serious and Organised Crime Agency (SOCA) 07768 290902 0207 855 2800 -----Original Message----- From: John Carr [mailto:john.carr49@btinternet.com] Sent: 06 February 2012 21:31 To: LEMON, Sharon Subject: If you're suffering from insomnia Hi Shazza, My blog went up today. Rather annoyingly I originally put up one I finished writing yesterday, not the one I had been working on today. But I think I've caught up now. John Check out my blog: http://johnc1912.wordpress.com<http://johnc1912.wordpress.com/> Follow me on Twitter: @johnc1912 This email was received from the INTERNET and scanned by the Government Secure Intranet anti-virus service supplied by Cable&Wireless Worldwide in partnership with MessageLabs. (CCTM Certificate Number 2009/09/0052.) In case of problems, please call your organisation's IT Helpdesk. Communications via the GSi may be automatically logged, monitored and/or recorded for legal purposes. All E-Mail sent and received by SOCA is scanned and subject to assessment. Messages sent or received by SOCA staff are not private and may be the subject of lawful business monitoring. E-Mail may be passed at any time and without notice to an appropriate branch within SOCA, on authority from the Director General or his Deputy for analysis. This E-Mail and any files transmitted with it are intended solely for the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you have received this message in error, please contact the sender as soon as possible. This information is supplied in confidence by SOCA, and is exempt from disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act 2000. It may also be subject to exemption under other UK legislation. Onward disclosure may be unlawful, for example, under the Data Protection Act 1998. Requests for disclosure to the public must be referred to the SOCA FOI single point of contact, by email on PICUEnquiries(a)soca.x.gsi.gov.uk or by telephoning 0870 268 8677. All E-Mail sent and received by SOCA is scanned and subject to assessment. Messages sent or received by SOCA staff are not private and may be the subject of lawful business monitoring. E-Mail may be passed at any time and without notice to an appropriate branch within SOCA, on authority from the Director General or his Deputy for analysis. This E-Mail and any files transmitted with it are intended solely for the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you have received this message in error, please contact the sender as soon as possible. The original of this email was scanned for viruses by the Government Secure Intranet virus scanning service supplied by Cable&Wireless Worldwide in partnership with MessageLabs. (CCTM Certificate Number 2009/09/0052.) On leaving the GSi this email was certified virus free. Communications via the GSi may be automatically logged, monitored and/or recorded for legal purposes.

3 2

Re: [Rt4-whois] FW: If you're suffering from insomnia
by James M. Bladel Feb. 7, 2012

Feb. 7, 2012

1 0

Re: [Rt4-whois] Questions on Recommendation 17
by Kathy Kleiman Feb. 7, 2012

Feb. 7, 2012

Interesting... tx Seth! Kathy: > Let's let the AoC speaks for itself. > > "ICANN additionally commits to enforcing its existing policy relating to > WHOIS, subject to applicable laws. Such existing policy requires that ICANN > implement measures to maintain timely, unrestricted and public access to > accurate and complete WHOIS information, including registrant, technical, > billing, and administrative contact information." > > Doesn't say that ICANN should play the operation role and it doesn't say > that ICANN should not. ICANN is required to implement measures to effect an > adequate result. I do recall discussing a portal, not sure if that was in > terms of ICANN operating the portal or ICANN contracting a third party to, > or maybe discussing both. > > Seth > > -----Original Message----- > From: rt4-whois-bounces(a)icann.org [mailto:rt4-whois-bounces@icann.org] On > Behalf Of Kathy Kleiman > Sent: Monday, February 06, 2012 5:20 AM > To: Lutz Donnerhacke > Cc: rt4-whois(a)icann.org > Subject: Re: [Rt4-whois] Questions on Recommendation 17 > > Hi Lutz, > Thank you for the detailed answers below. I am still working through > them and urge others to review them closely as well. I would very much > like to see the "all-whois" website you have been running since 1996 -- > would you be willing to share the link? > > There does seem to be a difference in how we view the AoC. I never saw > as **requiring ** ICANN to have an operational role in running websites, > and I don't remember such discussions in our meetings (did I sleep > through something?) I do remember discussing that ICANN -- with Whois > data as with so many other areas -- is responsible fo creating and > overseeing policies that implement the wording and goals of the AoC. > > I tend to have a sense that policy-making bodies are not great > operational bodies, and know there has been great push-back against > ICANN in other areas (e.g. the DNS-Cert discussion of 2010). > > I will send back more detailed comments shortly. Thank you for this > discussion online and, hopefully, in CR as well. And thanks for the link > to your website! > Best, > Kathy > > : >> On Fri, Feb 03, 2012 at 01:59:05PM -0500, Kathy Kleiman wrote: >>> I understand it, we are recommending a "dedicated, multilingual website" > to >>> provide thick Whois data (for thin gTLD registries, in one variation, and >>> all gTLD registries in the other): >> No, we are recommending a "dedicated, multilingual website" to provide a >> "centralized access to all whois data regardless of the underlying data >> structure". >> >>> 1. What is the underlying data structure of this website? Is all the >>> information going to be gathered into and run out of a California > database >>> run and owned by ICANN? >> No. The website traveresed the data structure down the chain of whois >> servers (starting at whois.iana.org) It does not store nor copy the whois >> data, besides some short time caching. >> >> It's similar to DNS: A recursive resolver does not copy and stores all the >> DNS records worldwide, but is able to obtain the necessary data on the > fly. >>> 2. Alternatively, might it be a website run by ICANN offering links to > the >>> registries and registrars who hold the full Whois data? >> No. The results should be present directly on this particular website in >> order to fulfill the requirements of the AoC literaly: >> >> maintain timely, unrestricted and public access to accurate and > complete >> WHOIS information, including registrant, technical, billing, and >> administrative contact information. >> >> In order to overcome the problems, shown by user experiance report, the >> website needs to be multilingual not only in terms of the user interface > but >> also in the presentation of the gathered data. >> >> Of course, the website needs to show the sources and the way how the >> information was obtained, where it is really stored and why. That's the >> minimal requirement from (my) understanding of (European) data protection >> laws. >> >>> 3. Do you think this would become the place in which all people search > for >>> all gTLD whois data? >> Yes, that's the intention of the proposal. >> >>> If so, could there be a scalability problem if all >>> people (law enforcement, domain name purchasers, etc) go to one website > for >>> all Whois searches? Is there some liability to ICANN should such a site > go >>> down? >> Yes, that's the reasoning behind the proposal: The AoC urges ICANN to >> provide such an unrestricted access. Unfortunly many registries does rate >> limit the access or does not provide all the required data. >> >> ICANN - as the operator of the proposed website - has the power to enforce >> it's own policies by using it's own contracts with the parties in > question. >> This way the proposal collapses the differences between real world and AoC >> at a single point within the organisation which is able to solve the > problem. >>> 4. Are we advocating a particular policy/technical solution or is the >>> implementation open to discussion in the GNSO and other policy groups >>> within ICANN? >> We - as a group - are limited to the such a proposal and might add some >> personal reasoning (like this). >> >> Personally I do run such an "all-whois" website since 1996 and do have > some >> ideas how it should be implemented and which operational policy should be >> enforced. But that's outside of our scope. >> > --

1 0

Slides for Tuesday's meeting
by Emily Taylor Feb. 5, 2012

Feb. 5, 2012

Hi James Further to our exchanges about Tuesday's meeting, here is a proposed slide deck. I've adapted it from the recent presentation to the GNSO. I've simplified the theme, to get rid of the reflected text, added the date, and audience, and then generally pruned the wording of the slides down a bit. I don't think I've changed the meaning, just made the slides a little more accessible. I will bring a USB with them on, and hope we can find someone who can drive them. All - let us know if you have any comments on the slides. These will form the basis of our presentation to the Community in Costa Rica, so let's keep incrementally editing them. See you Tuesday, James! Kind regards Emily -- * * 76 Temple Road, Oxford OX4 2EZ UK t: +44 (0)1865 582 811 • m: +44 (0)7540 049 322 emily(a)emilytaylor.eu *www.etlaw.co.uk* Emily Taylor Consultancy Limited is a company registered in England and Wales No. 7630471. VAT No. 114487713.

2 1