Re: [Rt4-whois] FW: Adopting Specification 4 of the AGB
James, I agree on the need for consensus re our recommendations. Could you point me to the language that says the only way to modify a Contracted Party contract is through the PDP. I haven't been able to locate that in the Bylaws or the GNSO PDP. I'm sure it's somewhere but I can't find the policy or process document that states this. Bill On Nov 17, 2011, at 10:46 AM, James M. Bladel wrote: Hi folks: Reading this thread (and reflecting on the work Susan and I are doing w.r.t. Proxy services), I am reminded of the limited nature of this Review Team in making its recommendations. Like my favorite game show "Jeopardy," it's not enough to have the correct answer. The format of the response (in our case, recommendation) is equally important. Bearing this in mind, I submit that recommendations should include the following elements: (1) Target (To whom are we directing the recommendation?) (2) Mechanism (By what means will the recommended action be implemented?) (3) Timeframe (What is the deadline for action? Note that in ICANN as well as the general world, if something is left open-ended, it will never be completed.) (4) Communication, Measurement & Follow-up (Was implementation complete? Did it work? What can the next WHOIS RT take away from it?) Note that if we are describing actions that would create new obligations for Contracted Parties (Registries & Registrars), we must reference the GNSO Policy Development Process (PDP, Annex A in the ICANN Bylaws) as part of our recommendation, the first step of which is requesting an Issues Report. This is the only way to create new obligations for contracted parties. So, instead of: "Registrars should fix Problem X." A proper recommendation might look like: "No later than Jul 2012, the ICANN Board should request a PDP Issues Report to examine the potential actions Registrars can take to address Problem X." Also want to re-iterate that divided recommendations will most likely die on the table when presented to the Board. To ensure that each and every recommendation becomes reality, we must be unanimous in our presentation. If we aren't there yet with some of our recs, then we have to walk them back together until we can find middle ground (similar to what Susan and I are doing w.r.t. Proxy). Thanks-- J. Subject: Re: [Rt4-whois] FW: Adopting Specification 4 of the AGB From: Susan Kawaguchi <susank@fb.com<mailto:susank@fb.com>> Date: Thu, November 17, 2011 12:00 pm To: Kathy Kleiman <kathy@kathykleiman.com<mailto:kathy@kathykleiman.com>>, "rt4-whois@icann.org<mailto:rt4-whois@icann.org>" <rt4-whois@icann.org<mailto:rt4-whois@icann.org>> Hi Kathy, Please see my comments below. From: Kathy Kleiman [mailto:kathy@kathykleiman.com] Sent: Thursday, November 17, 2011 6:56 AM To: rt4-whois@icann.org<mailto:rt4-whois@icann.org>; Susan Kawaguchi Subject: Re: [Rt4-whois] FW: Adopting Specification 4 of the AGB Dear Susan, I understand your desire to see a Thick Whois Model imposed across the board. Watching the users on the video we watched in MDR struggle with the searches was painful. Knowing that you struggle with this issue every day is even worse. However, adopting the Applicant Guidebook provisions for New Registries I don't see as being the right answer. In part, because it raises as many questions as it answers, and it may pose instability to the Net. If your assertion is true then we obviously have much bigger issues to deal with but I have followed the new gTld process from the very beginning, through all the versions and discussions of the AGB, had internal technical people evaluate the processes ICANN is advocating and have never heard a concern that Specification 4 would cause instability to the internet. To expand: As we have discussed, in the early days, the functions of Registry and Registrar were not separate and Network Solutions both managed the database for .COM, .ORG and NET, and also registered domain names into it. In 1999, I believe, ICANN introduced the first bit of competition, 4 registrars to register domain names into the new gTLDs. As more competition in the registrar business came in (considered a hallmark of ICANN's work to introduce competition into the domain name space), the registrars began banging on Network Solutions, then owned by SAIC, then purchased by Verisign, to stop their compete ownership and control of the Whois information. It was an element of the competitive nature of the new domain name space to break up the information so one registry would not own and control it all. Completely understand the history but the need to create competition within the registrar space is no longer an issue. What we are facing now is a real need for the internet consumer to be able to easily look up a domain name registration. Whether that is converting the .com and .net registries to a Thick Whois model or ICANN creating a centralized WHOIS data base by collecting all the WHOIS information from each registrar I could advocate for either option. (I think Lutz is drafting a proposal for this option) If the team does not address this issue, in my mind, we have not done our job. It is crucial that the information for a domain name is available and accurate (privacy and proxy registrations aside as that is still viable WHOIS information). The key concern was, of course, .COM. And these issues, and the real concern of this largest of the registry database, now numbering almost 100 million names (Oct 2011), would control the customer data and be able to bypass the new registrars and compete directly for the registration business, as well as creating a series of additional business functions. It's an enormous set of competitive data (as we heard from the Registrars in the Registry/Registrar meeting in Singapore with us) Registrars remain very committed to this model, and for legitimate reasons. This is a redherring. There are many ways that they all collect competitive data and having one source that is accurate, available and searchable would benefit the internet consumers in general and not the smaller segment of just registrars or registries . Further, the danger of converting a 100 million database is enormous. When the Public Interest Registry took over the .ORG contract (after competitive applications), among the first things it had to do was convert the ORG registrations to thick ones. There were only a few million registrations at the time and it was still an enormous and delicate task. It was a huge moment. I understand for a small company transitioning databases can be harrowing but Verisign is a well funded, large organization and well equipped to scope out the process before hand and put all the necessary safeguards in place. Truly 100 million records is not that significant any more when you look at the large internet companies and how many users or accounts that are created every day. Such a change, now to the enormous .COM database, is not an easy one to think about. Every major company in the world has a .COM registration. These websites are 24*7 operations. The risk to the Security & Stability of the Net would be one to study closely and carefully. The difficulties, not to mention risks and liabilities, would be enormous. The Thin Whois database could continue to exist to address any identified issues with security and stability of the internet. I am fine with the requirement to run both Thick and Thin. The ICANN centralized database proposal would essentially do that. Is there something we can do, within the confines of our mandate and our fact-based research and assessment. Yes, I really think there are. We have some key things we have agreed to: 1) Findability - thin registration data should be findable. That's a technical issue (broken links) and an educational issue (what's a thin Whois, or better yet, how to I find .COM data). On education, there is much we can do to educate and help Law Enforcement and Fraud Investigators (public and private) to find the data we need. Let's include some recommendations on these. I have never had an issue (to date) with finding Thin registration data. Verisign data is always available and probably always accurate. But it is not enough data. We need the THICK WHOIS data to protect the internet consumer. 2) Access & Accuracy - as we have already been discussing and which are key. One thing we could do (and it will make us few friends) is to throw this kettle of fish into the hands of the registries and registrars on a timeframe, e.g., six months or one year, for their solutions and recommendations. They, together with the Community which must review and accept their solutions, must move quickly. Without specific recommendations and ( I agree with you) a specific time frame I do not have any faith in solving this issue. I do agree that we should not get to deep into the details but if we do not provide clear findings and actionable recommendations I fear we will be arguing about this for the next decade. But I don't think we can mandate a specific answer. Best, Kathy : Just realized that I did not attach the document to this email last week. From: Susan Kawaguchi Sent: Tuesday, November 08, 2011 11:13 PM To: rt4-whois@icann.org<mailto:rt4-whois@icann.org> Subject: Adopting Specification 4 of the AGB Attached is a draft of recommendations for adopting Specification 4 of the AGB for existing gTlds. At the end of the document are rough thoughts on ICANN creating a voluntary program for registrars to be considered A list registrars. This would recognize the responsible registars and the proactive service they provide. I will not be on the call tonight since it is 3 am my time. Not sure anything I would say would make any sense. Susan Kawaguchi Domain Name Manager Facebook Inc. 1601 California Avenue Palo Alto, CA Phone - 650 485-6064 Cell - 650 387 3904 Please note my email address has changed to skawaguchi@fb.com<mailto:skawaguchi@fb.com> NOTICE: This email (including any attachments) may contain information that is private, confidential, or protected by attorney-client or other privilege. Unless you are the intended recipient, you may not use, copy, or retransmit the email or its contents. _______________________________________________ Rt4-whois mailing list Rt4-whois@icann.org<mailto:Rt4-whois@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/rt4-whois -- ________________________________ _______________________________________________ Rt4-whois mailing list Rt4-whois@icann.org<mailto:Rt4-whois@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/rt4-whois _______________________________________________ Rt4-whois mailing list Rt4-whois@icann.org<mailto:Rt4-whois@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/rt4-whois
I completely agree with you James and suggest all our recommendations in the report follow the elements you have described. "Bearing this in mind, I submit that recommendations should include the following elements: (1) Target (To whom are we directing the recommendation?) (2) Mechanism (By what means will the recommended action be implemented?) (3) Timeframe (What is the deadline for action? Note that in ICANN as well as the general world, if something is left open-ended, it will never be completed.) (4) Communication, Measurement & Follow-up (Was implementation complete? Did it work? What can the next WHOIS RT take away from it?)" -----Original Message----- From: Smith, Bill [mailto:bill.smith@paypal-inc.com] Sent: Thursday, November 17, 2011 12:38 PM To: James M. Bladel Cc: Susan Kawaguchi; rt4-whois@icann.org Subject: Re: [Rt4-whois] Adopting Specification 4 of the AGB James, I agree on the need for consensus re our recommendations. Could you point me to the language that says the only way to modify a Contracted Party contract is through the PDP. I haven't been able to locate that in the Bylaws or the GNSO PDP. I'm sure it's somewhere but I can't find the policy or process document that states this. Bill On Nov 17, 2011, at 10:46 AM, James M. Bladel wrote: Hi folks: Reading this thread (and reflecting on the work Susan and I are doing w.r.t. Proxy services), I am reminded of the limited nature of this Review Team in making its recommendations. Like my favorite game show "Jeopardy," it's not enough to have the correct answer. The format of the response (in our case, recommendation) is equally important. Bearing this in mind, I submit that recommendations should include the following elements: (1) Target (To whom are we directing the recommendation?) (2) Mechanism (By what means will the recommended action be implemented?) (3) Timeframe (What is the deadline for action? Note that in ICANN as well as the general world, if something is left open-ended, it will never be completed.) (4) Communication, Measurement & Follow-up (Was implementation complete? Did it work? What can the next WHOIS RT take away from it?) Note that if we are describing actions that would create new obligations for Contracted Parties (Registries & Registrars), we must reference the GNSO Policy Development Process (PDP, Annex A in the ICANN Bylaws) as part of our recommendation, the first step of which is requesting an Issues Report. This is the only way to create new obligations for contracted parties. So, instead of: "Registrars should fix Problem X." A proper recommendation might look like: "No later than Jul 2012, the ICANN Board should request a PDP Issues Report to examine the potential actions Registrars can take to address Problem X." Also want to re-iterate that divided recommendations will most likely die on the table when presented to the Board. To ensure that each and every recommendation becomes reality, we must be unanimous in our presentation. If we aren't there yet with some of our recs, then we have to walk them back together until we can find middle ground (similar to what Susan and I are doing w.r.t. Proxy). Thanks-- J. Subject: Re: [Rt4-whois] FW: Adopting Specification 4 of the AGB From: Susan Kawaguchi <susank@fb.com<mailto:susank@fb.com>> Date: Thu, November 17, 2011 12:00 pm To: Kathy Kleiman <kathy@kathykleiman.com<mailto:kathy@kathykleiman.com>>, "rt4-whois@icann.org<mailto:rt4-whois@icann.org>" <rt4-whois@icann.org<mailto:rt4-whois@icann.org>> Hi Kathy, Please see my comments below. From: Kathy Kleiman [mailto:kathy@kathykleiman.com] Sent: Thursday, November 17, 2011 6:56 AM To: rt4-whois@icann.org<mailto:rt4-whois@icann.org>; Susan Kawaguchi Subject: Re: [Rt4-whois] FW: Adopting Specification 4 of the AGB Dear Susan, I understand your desire to see a Thick Whois Model imposed across the board. Watching the users on the video we watched in MDR struggle with the searches was painful. Knowing that you struggle with this issue every day is even worse. However, adopting the Applicant Guidebook provisions for New Registries I don't see as being the right answer. In part, because it raises as many questions as it answers, and it may pose instability to the Net. If your assertion is true then we obviously have much bigger issues to deal with but I have followed the new gTld process from the very beginning, through all the versions and discussions of the AGB, had internal technical people evaluate the processes ICANN is advocating and have never heard a concern that Specification 4 would cause instability to the internet. To expand: As we have discussed, in the early days, the functions of Registry and Registrar were not separate and Network Solutions both managed the database for .COM, .ORG and NET, and also registered domain names into it. In 1999, I believe, ICANN introduced the first bit of competition, 4 registrars to register domain names into the new gTLDs. As more competition in the registrar business came in (considered a hallmark of ICANN's work to introduce competition into the domain name space), the registrars began banging on Network Solutions, then owned by SAIC, then purchased by Verisign, to stop their compete ownership and control of the Whois information. It was an element of the competitive nature of the new domain name space to break up the information so one registry would not own and control it all. Completely understand the history but the need to create competition within the registrar space is no longer an issue. What we are facing now is a real need for the internet consumer to be able to easily look up a domain name registration. Whether that is converting the .com and .net registries to a Thick Whois model or ICANN creating a centralized WHOIS data base by collecting all the WHOIS information from each registrar I could advocate for either option. (I think Lutz is drafting a proposal for this option) If the team does not address this issue, in my mind, we have not done our job. It is crucial that the information for a domain name is available and accurate (privacy and proxy registrations aside as that is still viable WHOIS information). The key concern was, of course, .COM. And these issues, and the real concern of this largest of the registry database, now numbering almost 100 million names (Oct 2011), would control the customer data and be able to bypass the new registrars and compete directly for the registration business, as well as creating a series of additional business functions. It's an enormous set of competitive data (as we heard from the Registrars in the Registry/Registrar meeting in Singapore with us) Registrars remain very committed to this model, and for legitimate reasons. This is a redherring. There are many ways that they all collect competitive data and having one source that is accurate, available and searchable would benefit the internet consumers in general and not the smaller segment of just registrars or registries . Further, the danger of converting a 100 million database is enormous. When the Public Interest Registry took over the .ORG contract (after competitive applications), among the first things it had to do was convert the ORG registrations to thick ones. There were only a few million registrations at the time and it was still an enormous and delicate task. It was a huge moment. I understand for a small company transitioning databases can be harrowing but Verisign is a well funded, large organization and well equipped to scope out the process before hand and put all the necessary safeguards in place. Truly 100 million records is not that significant any more when you look at the large internet companies and how many users or accounts that are created every day. Such a change, now to the enormous .COM database, is not an easy one to think about. Every major company in the world has a .COM registration. These websites are 24*7 operations. The risk to the Security & Stability of the Net would be one to study closely and carefully. The difficulties, not to mention risks and liabilities, would be enormous. The Thin Whois database could continue to exist to address any identified issues with security and stability of the internet. I am fine with the requirement to run both Thick and Thin. The ICANN centralized database proposal would essentially do that. Is there something we can do, within the confines of our mandate and our fact-based research and assessment. Yes, I really think there are. We have some key things we have agreed to: 1) Findability - thin registration data should be findable. That's a technical issue (broken links) and an educational issue (what's a thin Whois, or better yet, how to I find .COM data). On education, there is much we can do to educate and help Law Enforcement and Fraud Investigators (public and private) to find the data we need. Let's include some recommendations on these. I have never had an issue (to date) with finding Thin registration data. Verisign data is always available and probably always accurate. But it is not enough data. We need the THICK WHOIS data to protect the internet consumer. 2) Access & Accuracy - as we have already been discussing and which are key. One thing we could do (and it will make us few friends) is to throw this kettle of fish into the hands of the registries and registrars on a timeframe, e.g., six months or one year, for their solutions and recommendations. They, together with the Community which must review and accept their solutions, must move quickly. Without specific recommendations and ( I agree with you) a specific time frame I do not have any faith in solving this issue. I do agree that we should not get to deep into the details but if we do not provide clear findings and actionable recommendations I fear we will be arguing about this for the next decade. But I don't think we can mandate a specific answer. Best, Kathy : Just realized that I did not attach the document to this email last week. From: Susan Kawaguchi Sent: Tuesday, November 08, 2011 11:13 PM To: rt4-whois@icann.org<mailto:rt4-whois@icann.org> Subject: Adopting Specification 4 of the AGB Attached is a draft of recommendations for adopting Specification 4 of the AGB for existing gTlds. At the end of the document are rough thoughts on ICANN creating a voluntary program for registrars to be considered A list registrars. This would recognize the responsible registars and the proactive service they provide. I will not be on the call tonight since it is 3 am my time. Not sure anything I would say would make any sense. Susan Kawaguchi Domain Name Manager Facebook Inc. 1601 California Avenue Palo Alto, CA Phone - 650 485-6064 Cell - 650 387 3904 Please note my email address has changed to skawaguchi@fb.com<mailto:skawaguchi@fb.com> NOTICE: This email (including any attachments) may contain information that is private, confidential, or protected by attorney-client or other privilege. Unless you are the intended recipient, you may not use, copy, or retransmit the email or its contents. _______________________________________________ Rt4-whois mailing list Rt4-whois@icann.org<mailto:Rt4-whois@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/rt4-whois -- ________________________________ _______________________________________________ Rt4-whois mailing list Rt4-whois@icann.org<mailto:Rt4-whois@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/rt4-whois _______________________________________________ Rt4-whois mailing list Rt4-whois@icann.org<mailto:Rt4-whois@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/rt4-whois
participants (3)
-
James M. Bladel -
Smith, Bill -
Susan Kawaguchi