Comments:
Rather than pull additional text from the AOC, I suggest we add
a link to it. There may be other pertinent sections that one or more of us
would like to reference.
I’m not convinced that our reviewing the history of
current WHOIS policy is either useful or relevant to our work. I’m
concerned that such a review would be time-consuming yielding little useful
information since our charge is to review “existing policy and
implementation”. (Note, I say this as one who is very fond of history.)
We should keep in mind, whether we review the ICANN history or
not, that WHOIS (policy) and numerous other aspects of the DNS (Internet)
predate ICANN and the other organizations responsible for the governance and
“operation” of the Internet.
From:
rt4-whois-bounces@icann.org [mailto:rt4-whois-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf
Of Emily Taylor
Sent: Sunday, January 02, 2011 9:43 AM
To: RT4 WHOIS
Subject: [Rt4-whois] Scope of Work
Hi all
I'm belatedly replying to Kathy's thread, and her updates on
the Scope document following the Cartagena meeting. Bearing in mind that
we should be aiming to communicate our scope of work to both ICANN insiders and
those not so familiar with the context of these review teams, I have amended
the draft scope to add in context from the AoC, including quoting the fact that
the team is constituted under the AoC, the relevant paragraph (9.3.1) and other
overarching principles contained within the AoC relating to ICANN's obligations
to make policy in the public interest and "not just in the interests of a
particular set of stakeholders" (para 4).
One of the questions that I have in approaching our work,
which I hope we will discuss in London, is to what extent should we be looking
at the policy process which has led to the current WHOIS policy - because it
seems to me that these overarching principles about public interest vs
interests of particular stakeholders is in part answered by a look at (1) where
does responsibility for Whois policy formation sit within the ICANN
organisation (2) how do the relevant strands (gNSO, GAC, SSAC) that we see
referenced in the background materials provided by staff fit together, and what
role does the board play and (3) with regard to WHOIS policy, what
mechanisms/processes are in place to ensure that the end result is made in the
public interest?
Please take a look at the draft Scope. I tried to save
the changes, and I think they are there, but the screen went a bit funny, so
for completeness, here is a copy of the complete scope as amended by me today
(see below).
Best regards
Emily
---------------------
The
WHOIS Review Team (WRT) has been constituted under the Affirmation of
Commitments by the United States Department of Commerce and the Internet
Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers dated 30 September 2009 (AoC).
Under
paragraph 9.3.1 of the AoC, ICANN commits to organising "a review of WHOIS
policy and its implementation to assess the extent to which WHOIS policy is
effective and its implementation meets the legitimate needs of law enforcement
and promotes consumer trust."
Accordingly,
the Scope of the Whois Review Team is to assess the extent to which existing
WHOIS policy and its implementation:
- is effective,
- meets the
legitimate needs of law enforcement, and
- promotes
consumer trust.
The
WRT will identify and document ICANN’s existing WHOIS policy.
The
WRT will identify and document ICANN's implementation of its Whois Policy.
It
will define and identify law enforcement, and the term "legitimate needs
of law enforcement."
It
will define consumer trust and analyse what factors promote consumer trust in
the context of the Whois.
It
will identify the areas, if any, in which the interests above may be in
conflict with each other.
It
will assess applicable laws and analyze issues possibly including:
- contractual obligations vs. national law obligations
- differing global laws and ICANN obligations
It
will review the extent to which ICANN’s existing WHOIS policy and its
implementation are effective in meeting the legitimate needs of law enforcement
and promotes consumer trust.
This
assessment will include an evidence-based approach, and seek to identify good
practice in other areas of the domain space (as a benchmarking tool).
The
assessment will keep in mind overarching principles set out in the AoC in
relation to ICANN's policy, ie that "decisions made related to the global
technical coordination of the DNS are made in the public interest and are
accountable and transparent" (paragraph 3(a)) "promote competition,
consumer trust, and consumer choice in the DNS marketplace" (paragraph
3(c)), and that the outcomes of ICANN's private coordinating process should
"reflect the public interest...and not just the interests of a particular
set of stakeholders" (paragraph 4). These principles set the context
for the reviews (of which the WRT is one) performed under the AoC.
The
WRT will undertake an analysis and determination of ICANN's performance against
the AOC requirement 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, and what impact such requirement have on the legitimate needs of
law enforcement and promoting consumer trust.
76 Temple Road, Oxford OX4 2EZ UK
telephone: 01865 582 811 mobile: 07540 049 322
emily.taylor@etlaw.co.uk www.etlaw.co.uk