- Whois-iag-volunteers - lists.icann.org

Proposed Final Report, Revised Procedure and Cover Memo
by Jamie Hedlund May 22, 2016

May 22, 2016

All, Attached for your review please find attached Proposed Final Report, Revised Procedure (redline) and Cover Memo addressed to the GNSO Council. Please review and provide any input by 19 May 2016. We would like to submit these documents to the GNSO Council for their consideration on 20 May 2016. Thank you. Best, Jamie Jamie Hedlund VP, Strategic Programs Global Domains Division ICANN +1.202.374.3969 (m) +1.202.570.7125 (d) jamie.hedlund(a)icann.org

3 4

Public comment summary posted
by Jamie Hedlund Jan. 21, 2016

Jan. 21, 2016

FYI - https://www.icann.org/public-comments/iag-whois-conflicts-privacy-2015-10-05 -en <http://mailer.samanage.com/wf/click?upn=3sVClaOwo5uihwlrrc4OfzQsvRRwK8tznNE 7s3dkmBMD294y0lcShPEwmrNzsM2toyG9UUIOJ1V0bxkPpSSZtGRmTVBwq8yzYf9iKnwMdGMWESN CpoViJLruhWi24Mix_u6a2PqF3vslNNtSRbhxJPbaBpZk4DC8jbmALa5nMrRXo0eqnz-2B9Ps9xJ PFJNX0UL-2F-2FJI3KnlPQtLax4sDAMUOleyokUItB1ySUKv0eZQ0yVNOU4CPsXxolzadQWFEIB3 jt4FBhYck7cuW-2B60WUNIUfplmEQLN49Pg8gnyn4WN5REwmeLm3WVCEgIuWpHjpntSOaUoK52ml UftmtKfbM8YQXuDh7vnDtn9gvVW0m9e1i8x7DYS-2FFnIAXqGTOXZSAc0qGjFopv0nIpMbX48Ukj mi36xTL31Ys3g94MzUCnwDSyh7dcY1VG2grcgOjjhYKxmTPChyu0R0URCtmlkx5eVp88UVc80ook OrqjXjBDJym3d6Tp6H-2Fhiyi-2BzVodf3oSYJtLUjEPVITQayq3DJ1X4MLfqCHRHctXbtcAljAI gqSS-2BbpDR-2ByJEXYJifUdggvzwFu06pV3Rui-2Bkab0a-2FbweifS0RVMZdQhRhBLd8um4WIY n-2BdV2DgT23U5DKUM44nn> Best, Jamie Jamie Hedlund VP, Strategic Programs Global Domains Division ICANN +1.202.374.3969 (m) +1.202.570.7125 (d) jamie.hedlund(a)icann.org

2 4

Draft Comment Summary & Analysis
by Jamie Hedlund Jan. 12, 2016

Jan. 12, 2016

All, Attached please find a draft of the Staff Comment Summary & Analysis on the IAG Initial Report on the Whois IAG Conflicts procedure. We would like to post these no later than Friday COB. Please respond to the list with any feedback you may have. Thank you. Best, Jamie Jamie Hedlund VP, Strategic Programs Global Domains Division ICANN +1.202.374.3969 (m) +1.202.570.7125 (d) jamie.hedlund(a)icann.org

1 0

Response to final report
by Holly Raiche Nov. 23, 2015

Nov. 23, 2015

The following is an informal statement that represents the view of many of the ALAC members. We simply did not have the bandwidth or time to formally approve this statement, so it cannot be considered as a formal ALAC response. That said, this issue has been discussed and does have support within ALAC. Again, my apologies in not managing to have the time for this to go through formal ALAC processes. I’m happy to take any questions on its content. Holly The ALAC has deep concerns with the Implementation Advisory Group’s proposed alternative ‘triggers’ and supports the “Minority Views’ of Stephanie Perrin and Christopher Wilkinson. The original goal of this policy (concluded by the GNSO in November 2005) was to develop procedures that could reconcile mandatory laws on privacy with the requirements on registries and registrars under contract with ICANN for the collection, display and distribution of WHOIS personal information. Unfortunately, the Task Force charged with implementing the policy adopted a ‘solution’ that is virtually unworkable and has never been used. Under the ‘solution’ the registrar/registry should notify ICANN within 30 days of situations (an inquiry, litigation or threat of sanctions) when the registry/registrar can demonstrate that it cannot comply with WHOIS obligations due to local or national privacy laws. There are two fundamental reasons why the policy is unworkable. The first is the bizarre outcome that registrars and registries must seek ICANN permission to comply with their applicable local laws. The second obvious flaw is that it means registrars/registries must wait until there is an ‘inquiry or investigation etc of some sort before the process can be triggered. This Implementation Working Group (IWG) was formed to ‘ consider the need for changes to how the procedure is invoked and used’. The difficulty with that approach is that it does not address the basic flaws in the processes proposed: it still assumes that ICANN has a role in determining registry/registrar compliance with applicable local law and it still believes that solution lies in legal events that ‘trigger’ a resolution process. The ISG report proposes an “Alternative Trigger’ (Appendix 1) or a Written Legal Opinion (Dual Trigger) (Appendix 2). The Alternative Trigger process is far simpler and preferable. Indeed, the language suggests that the process might be used to reconcile ICANN WHOIS requirements with relevant privacy law more generally, and not on just on a case by case basis. There are, however, difficulties with the Alternative Trigger proposal, as follows. It relies on advice from law firms (whose advice would not bind the relevant privacy agency), or on agencies themselves (who are most often reluctant to provide such advice) The onus is on individual registries/registrars to invoke the process. There are many smaller registries/registrars that would not have the resources to fund such advice, particularly if it is needed on a case by case basis Because laws/regulations on the handling of personal information vary from area to area (whether national or regional), different registries/registrars will be bound by different sets of requirements – in order to comply with the same contractual terms It is also not clear why GAC advice is included in both proposed ‘triggers’. The expertise of individual GAC members relates to ICANN’s remit: domain names, IP addresses and protocols. The ALAC supports both of the proposals made by Christopher Wilkinson (Appendix 4) which address the issues raised . The first is – at the least – a ‘block exemption’ for all registries/registrars in the relevant jurisdiction. This would eliminate the ‘case by case’ approach to the issue and provide certainty for all registries/registrars (whether large or small) in that area. A better approach is his call for a ‘best practice’ policy on the collection, retention and revealing of WHOIS information. This would ensure that, regardless of the jurisdiction of the registrar/registries – and registrants – all would receive the same privacy protection. Holly Raiche Carlton Samuels

4 3

The EFF's take on the report of the IAG so far
by Bartlett Morgan Oct. 19, 2015

Oct. 19, 2015

https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2015/10/domain-registrars-have-ask-icanns-per…

1 0

Draft preliminary report
by Jamie Hedlund Oct. 5, 2015

Oct. 5, 2015

All, Attached please find the current draft preliminary report for your consideration. As discussed on the call, IAG members would have one week to propose any changes including the addition of minority statements. Please submit your edits no later than 23:59 UTC on 17 September 2015. ICANN will then seek comment on the document on 24 September 2015. Please note some of the larger changes in the document: first, I removed all references to "consensus." My colleagues in policy support remind me that consensus only applies after public comment is taken into account. Second, I added James's full proposal to a new Appendix 2. Finally, I cleaned up the formatting. Thank you again for your input and participation. Please let me know if you have any questions or concerns about the draft. Best, Jamie Jamie Hedlund VP, Strategic Programs Global Domains Division ICANN +1.202.374.3969 (m) +1.202.570.7125 (d) jamie.hedlund(a)icann.org

8 25

Re: [IAG-WHOIS conflicts] Draft preliminary report
by Jamie Hedlund Sept. 11, 2015

Sept. 11, 2015

That’s not exactly what I meant. GAC members come from various ministries. Most of them coordinate with other ministries back in Capitol. Few if any are allowed to issue statements on any subject outside their ministry without coordination across their government. By coordinating with the relevant ministry or agency the GAC member should be able to provide a statement. Thanks. Best, Jamie Jamie Hedlund VP, Strategic Programs Global Domains Division ICANN +1.202.374.3969 (m) +1.202.570.7125 (d) jamie.hedlund(a)icann.org On 9/11/15, 10:03, "Luc SEUFER" <lseufer(a)dclgroup.eu> wrote: >That’s exactly what I am afraid of. If the GAC members don’t even have >enough powers to state that they are/aren’t entitled to provide the >statements foreseen under the alternative trigger, I trust we can safely >make this bullet point optional. > >Thanks, > >Luc > > > >> On 11 Sep 2015, at 15:24, Jamie Hedlund <jamie.hedlund(a)icann.org> wrote: >> >> Luc, >> >> Thanks for your comments. Happy to clarify the second bullet as you >> suggest. As for asking the GAC whether each member is entitled to issue >> support for a request, I suspect we may never get an answer. Their >> ³authorities² vary widely depending on which part of the government they >> represent. But it seems safe to assume that if they don¹t have explicit >> authority, they would be empowered to seek it from the relevant agency >> within their government. >> >> Make sense? >> >> Best, >> Jamie >> >> Jamie Hedlund >> VP, Strategic Programs >> Global Domains Division >> ICANN >> +1.202.374.3969 (m) >> +1.202.570.7125 (d) >> jamie.hedlund(a)icann.org >> >> >> >> >> On 9/11/15, 05:04, "Luc SEUFER" <lseufer(a)dclgroup.eu> wrote: >> >>> Hi Jamie, >>> >>> Reading the Contracted Party Request Trigger. >>> >>> The 2nd bullet point should be rewritten so that it is clear that >>> ³affected parties² refer to those contracted parties which local laws >>> conflict with a WHOIS obligation. >>> >>> I am afraid it could be understood as an obligation to seek written >>> support from all contracted parties. >>> >>> And regarding the written support or non-objection from the GAC member. >>> Could we as a semi-WG ask the GAC whether they are all entitled to >>>issue >>> such support? >>> >>> Thanks, >>> >>> Luc >>> >>> >>> >>> On 09 Sep 2015, at 23:30, Jamie Hedlund >>> <jamie.hedlund(a)icann.org<mailto:jamie.hedlund@icann.org>> wrote: >>> >>> All, >>> >>> Attached please find the current draft preliminary report for your >>> consideration. As discussed on the call, IAG members would have one >>>week >>> to propose any changes including the addition of minority statements. >>> Please submit your edits no later than 23:59 UTC on 17 September 2015. >>> ICANN will then seek comment on the document on 24 September 2015. >>> >>> Please note some of the larger changes in the document: first, I >>>removed >>> all references to ³consensus.² My colleagues in policy support remind >>>me >>> that consensus only applies after public comment is taken into account. >>> Second, I added James¹s full proposal to a new Appendix 2. Finally, I >>> cleaned up the formatting. >>> >>> Thank you again for your input and participation. Please let me know if >>> you have any questions or concerns about the draft. >>> >>> Best, >>> Jamie >>> >>> Jamie Hedlund >>> VP, Strategic Programs >>> Global Domains Division >>> ICANN >>> +1.202.374.3969 (m) >>> +1.202.570.7125 (d) >>> jamie.hedlund(a)icann.org<mailto:jamie.hedlund@icann.org> >>> <IAG Draft Report v4 >>>.docx>_______________________________________________ >>> Whois-iag-volunteers mailing list >>> Whois-iag-volunteers(a)icann.org<mailto:Whois-iag-volunteers@icann.org> >>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/whois-iag-volunteers >>> >>> >>> ________________________________ >>> >>> -------------------------------------------------------- >>> >>> This e-mail and any attached files are confidential and intended solely >>> for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If >>> you have received this e-mail by mistake, please notify the sender >>> immediately and delete it from your system. You must not copy the >>>message >>> or disclose its contents to anyone. >>> >>> Think of the environment: don't print this e-mail unless you really >>>need >>> to. >>> >>> -------------------------------------------------------- >> > > >________________________________ > >-------------------------------------------------------- > >This e-mail and any attached files are confidential and intended solely >for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If >you have received this e-mail by mistake, please notify the sender >immediately and delete it from your system. You must not copy the message >or disclose its contents to anyone. > >Think of the environment: don't print this e-mail unless you really need >to. > >--------------------------------------------------------

3 5

Re: [IAG-WHOIS conflicts] Draft preliminary report
by Jamie Hedlund Sept. 11, 2015

Sept. 11, 2015

Luc, Thanks for your comments. Happy to clarify the second bullet as you suggest. As for asking the GAC whether each member is entitled to issue support for a request, I suspect we may never get an answer. Their ³authorities² vary widely depending on which part of the government they represent. But it seems safe to assume that if they don¹t have explicit authority, they would be empowered to seek it from the relevant agency within their government. Make sense? Best, Jamie Jamie Hedlund VP, Strategic Programs Global Domains Division ICANN +1.202.374.3969 (m) +1.202.570.7125 (d) jamie.hedlund(a)icann.org On 9/11/15, 05:04, "Luc SEUFER" <lseufer(a)dclgroup.eu> wrote: >Hi Jamie, > >Reading the Contracted Party Request Trigger. > >The 2nd bullet point should be rewritten so that it is clear that >³affected parties² refer to those contracted parties which local laws >conflict with a WHOIS obligation. > >I am afraid it could be understood as an obligation to seek written >support from all contracted parties. > >And regarding the written support or non-objection from the GAC member. >Could we as a semi-WG ask the GAC whether they are all entitled to issue >such support? > >Thanks, > >Luc > > > >On 09 Sep 2015, at 23:30, Jamie Hedlund ><jamie.hedlund(a)icann.org<mailto:jamie.hedlund@icann.org>> wrote: > >All, > >Attached please find the current draft preliminary report for your >consideration. As discussed on the call, IAG members would have one week >to propose any changes including the addition of minority statements. >Please submit your edits no later than 23:59 UTC on 17 September 2015. >ICANN will then seek comment on the document on 24 September 2015. > >Please note some of the larger changes in the document: first, I removed >all references to ³consensus.² My colleagues in policy support remind me >that consensus only applies after public comment is taken into account. >Second, I added James¹s full proposal to a new Appendix 2. Finally, I >cleaned up the formatting. > >Thank you again for your input and participation. Please let me know if >you have any questions or concerns about the draft. > >Best, >Jamie > >Jamie Hedlund >VP, Strategic Programs >Global Domains Division >ICANN >+1.202.374.3969 (m) >+1.202.570.7125 (d) >jamie.hedlund(a)icann.org<mailto:jamie.hedlund@icann.org> ><IAG Draft Report v4 .docx>_______________________________________________ >Whois-iag-volunteers mailing list >Whois-iag-volunteers(a)icann.org<mailto:Whois-iag-volunteers@icann.org> >https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/whois-iag-volunteers > > >________________________________ > >-------------------------------------------------------- > >This e-mail and any attached files are confidential and intended solely >for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If >you have received this e-mail by mistake, please notify the sender >immediately and delete it from your system. You must not copy the message >or disclose its contents to anyone. > >Think of the environment: don't print this e-mail unless you really need >to. > >--------------------------------------------------------

1 0

Fwd: [CCWG-ACCT] Proposed WHOIS language
by Christopher Wilkinson Sept. 3, 2015

Sept. 3, 2015

PS: The .pdf 'track changes' texts referred to are to be found right at the bottom of the below thread. CW Begin forwarded message: > From: CW Mail <mail(a)christopherwilkinson.eu> > Subject: Fwd: [CCWG-ACCT] Proposed WHOIS language > Date: 3 Sep 2015 21:52:34 GMT+02:00 > To: "accountability-cross-community(a)icann.org Accountability" <accountability-cross-community(a)icann.org> > Cc: "whois-iag-volunteers(a)icann.org" <whois-iag-volunteers(a)icann.org> > > Good evening: > > With all my admiration for this excursion into 'track-changes' and many thanks to Greg for the .pdf formats: > > a) I have not understood why these texts need to be agreed upon now. Isn't this par excellence a case to be referred to "work stream 2" - ? > > b) WHOIS policy is being addressed in ICANN through several parallel processes, to the point that I have every expectation that they will give rise to inconsistent outcomes. > We do not need CCWG to add to the process. > > c) In any event, I absolutely disagree to including anywhere the repeated references to " … a commitment that becomes part of ICANN Bylaws, regarding enforcement of the current WHOIS … " > > 1. Current WHOIS policy has proven to be unenforceable for more than a decade. > > 2. Current WHOIS policy, should it be enforced, jeopardises Registrars and Registrants in jurisdictions where the policy conflicts with applicable local law. > > 3. All of the above will have to be reviewed by the community as soon as ICANN proposes how to implement the recommendations for a new gTLD Directory Service. > > I suggest that CCWG drop the whole topic for the time being pending ICANN's proposals for new gTLD Directory Services. > > Regards > > CW > > > > > Begin forwarded message: > >> From: Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc(a)gmail.com> >> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Proposed WHOIS language >> Date: 3 Sep 2015 21:05:18 GMT+02:00 >> To: Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez <crg(a)isoc-cr.org> >> Cc: "accountability-cross-community(a)icann.org" <accountability-cross-community(a)icann.org> >> >> This seems to fall into the "no good deed goes unpunished" category. In any event, and in spite of not being asked, I have taken my time to convert the three documents to the PDF format, because I'm a nice guy. >> >> Greg >> >> On Thu, Sep 3, 2015 at 2:54 PM, Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez <crg(a)isoc-cr.org> wrote: >> My linux based, open source, FREE word processor opens/saves MS Word documents without any trouble………. So I don’t know what the issue is With Dr. Lisse´s IPad mini... >> >> >> Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez >> _____________________ >> >> email: crg(a)isoc-cr.org >> Skype: carlos.raulg >> +506 8837 7173 (cel) >> +506 4000 2000 (home) >> +506 2290 3678 (fax) >> _____________________ >> Apartado 1571-1000 >> San Jose, COSTA RICA >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>> On Sep 3, 2015, at 12:49 PM, Nigel Roberts <nigel(a)channelisles.net> wrote: >>> >>> To be Frank, it's pretty rude to expect everyone to use the same software supplier. (In fact, in some circumstances it's even anti-competitive). >>> >>> Why can't we use open standards, again? >>> >>> On 09/03/2015 07:46 PM, Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez wrote: >>>> I welcome your increasing flexibility >>>> the Apple store a a free app to read MS word documents now that should >>>> work in you iPad mini >>>> >>>> Good luck >>>> >>>> >>>> Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez >>>> _____________________ >>>> >>>> email: crg(a)isoc-cr.org <mailto:crg@isoc-cr.org> >>>> Skype: carlos.raulg >>>> +506 8837 7173 (cel) >>>> +506 4000 2000 (home) >>>> +506 2290 3678 (fax) >>>> _____________________ >>>> Apartado 1571-1000 >>>> San Jose, COSTA RICA >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> On Sep 3, 2015, at 11:56 AM, Dr Eberhard W Lisse <el(a)lisse.na >>>>> <mailto:el@lisse.na>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> I am not even going to bother to ask, for, the umpteenth time, that >>>>> documents are posted in an open format. >>>>> >>>>> el >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> Sent from Dr Lisse's iPad mini >>>>> >>>>> On Sep 3, 2015, at 17:24, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc(a)gmail.com >>>>> <mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> All: >>>>>> >>>>>> For what it's worth, I prepared track changes comparisons of the >>>>>> following: >>>>>> >>>>>> CCWG Proposal vs. AoC language >>>>>> Board Proposal vs. AoC language >>>>>> Board Proposal vs. CCWG Proposal >>>>>> >>>>>> These are attached. >>>>>> >>>>>> Greg >>>>>> >>>>>> On Thu, Sep 3, 2015 at 11:51 AM, Malcolm Hutty <malcolm(a)linx.net >>>>>> <mailto:malcolm@linx.net>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On 03/09/2015 13:27, Bruce Tonkin wrote: >>>>>> > Hello Malcolm, >>>>>> > >>>>>> > On 02/09/2015 02:24, Bruce Tonkin wrote: >>>>>> >> ICANN commits to enforcing its policy relating to the current WHOIS >>>>>> >> and any future gTLD Directory Service, >>>>>> > >>>>>> > To be clear - we are not talking about any specific service here with any pre-conceived set of requirements. >>>>>> >>>>>> Indeed. But I did think there was a risk that wording could be >>>>>> (mis)interpreted to suggest that we are - and then used to that >>>>>> effect >>>>>> when discussing what that future Directory Service might look like. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> > We are talking about a new service that is established as a result of a policy development process in the GNSO. If it helps you could add the text: >>>>>> > >>>>>> > "any future gTLD DIrectory Service, established via ICANN's bottom up policy development process". >>>>>> >>>>>> I think that would help. >>>>>> >>>>>> The only point that I'm making is that we aren't trying to >>>>>> pre-empt that >>>>>> process or use this insertion into the Bylaws to direct certain >>>>>> outcomes >>>>>> from it. On that, I think we're all agreed; it's just a matter of >>>>>> being >>>>>> clear in the language we choose. >>>>>> >>>>>> -- >>>>>> Malcolm Hutty | tel: +44 20 7645 3523 >>>>>> <tel:%2B44%2020%207645%203523> >>>>>> Head of Public Affairs | Read the LINX Public Affairs blog >>>>>> London Internet Exchange | http://publicaffairs.linx.net/ >>>>>> >>>>>> London Internet Exchange Ltd >>>>>> 21-27 St Thomas Street, London SE1 9RY >>>>>> >>>>>> Company Registered in England No. 3137929 >>>>>> Trinity Court, Trinity Street, Peterborough PE1 1DA >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list >>>>>> Accountability-Cross-Community(a)icann.org >>>>>> <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> >>>>>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> <CCWG vs AoC Whois Review Comparison.docx> >>>>>> <Board vs AoC Whois Review Comparison.docx> >>>>>> <Board vs CCWG Whois Review Comparison.docx> >>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list >>>>>> Accountability-Cross-Community(a)icann.org >>>>>> <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> >>>>>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list >>>>> Accountability-Cross-Community(a)icann.org >>>>> <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> >>>>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list >>>> Accountability-Cross-Community(a)icann.org >>>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community >>>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list >>> Accountability-Cross-Community(a)icann.org >>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list >> Accountability-Cross-Community(a)icann.org >> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community >> >> > > > >> _______________________________________________ >> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list >> Accountability-Cross-Community(a)icann.org >> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community >

1 0

Fwd: [CCWG-ACCT] ICANN comment re gTLD Directory Services and the ICANN Bylaws
by Christopher Wilkinson Sept. 2, 2015

Sept. 2, 2015

Good evening: May I suggest that the following information is relevant to the context within which the WHOIS IAG is currently working. Regarding the 'Two Pronged approach to WHOIS' (see below) I have the distinct impression - looking back over the past twelve months - that GNSO and its emanations,, including our IAG, have unduly privileged (i) the enforcement of existing policy (as you know, I do not recognise that as a 'consensus' policy) on the one hand, at the expense of (ii) progressing with the fundamental reform of gTLD registration data, on the other hand. I would also draw attention to the point 9.3.1 to the effect that enforcing existing policy is subject to applicable laws. Which is not presently the case. Regards CW Begin forwarded message: > From: Steve Crocker <steve.crocker(a)icann.org> > Subject: [CCWG-ACCT] ICANN comment re gTLD Directory Services and the ICANN Bylaws > Date: 18 Aug 2015 04:47:39 GMT+02:00 > To: Accountability Cross Community <accountability-cross-community(a)icann.org> > Cc: Steve Crocker <steve.crocker(a)icann.org> > > For more than a decade we have been wrestling with how to best reform Whois and specifically how we might best balance the very legitimate, though often conflicting goals of privacy and transparency, of accuracy and cost, and, in the larger sense, how to achieve overall effectiveness while respecting the values of the broad set of users of the Internet > > During the CCWG webinar on 4 August 2015[1] I said it would be unacceptable to copy the exact wording of the WHOIS review into ICANN’s Bylaws. This may seem like a very specific detail amidst the myriad of “larger” governance issues included in the CCWG proposal, so some may wonder why this merits attention. I put “larger” in quotes because to many, governance issues seem of premier importance and everything else is subordinate. Well, yes, governance issues are commanding enormous attention, but ICANN is first and foremost an organization that has a very specific mission on behalf of the Internet and its users, and that means we have to pay attention to the substance of what we do. > > Let me make it clear that we’re committed to improving and strengthening the gTLD registration data system, not weakening it, and I think the language that is currently written into the Whois review could impede long-needed improvements. See the end of this message for some of the actions ICANN and the IETF have taken over the past few years. In proposing to move the AoC Review obligations into ICANN’s Bylaws, the language should be consistent with, and supportive of, the advancements we have made and the goals we have set for ourselves. > > The AoC[2] language regarding the Whois reviews that was crafted in 2009 states: > >> 9.3.1 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. > > These words, well intentioned at the time they were written, embody the assumption that the architecture of the existing gTLD directory system that uses the WHOIS protocol is appropriate and that improvement is merely a matter of enforcement. I do not believe it is that simple, and I do not believe we should be embedding this assumption into ICANN’s Bylaws. > > The current wording is tied to the original – may I say “ancient?” – model that is sorely in need of overhaul. I am of the strong opinion that we must not import into ICANN’s Bylaws, the words drafted six years ago. I am concerned that a strict interpretation of the existing language is inconsistent with structural changes to the system, and hence it would be a mistake to continue to use that language. > > Rather, I feel this is the time to revise those words to fit both the current WHOIS service and the potential future needs for contact information, and to do so in a way that makes it clear to all parties that improvements and strengthening is the right direction for gTLD directory services to evolve. > > We will shortly propose language that is consistent with the intent of the existing language. It will make clear that we continue to be committed to a strong system and it will include the possibility of significant improvements that may require structural changes to the entire system. > > Steve Crocker > > On behalf of the ICANN Board of Directors > > ========================================================== > > Selected list of actions, including IETF work on WEIRDS, to strengthen the gTLD Directory Services and to build a path toward possible structural improvements. > > • Board Working Group—Board created a new "Board Working Group on Registration Data Directory Services” to support WHOIS as a strategic priority, oversee implementation/improvement of WHOIS, liaise with GNSO on PDP for next generation registration directory services, and liaise with the next WHOIS Review Team. > > • Board-Initiated Policy Development—Board adopted a “Process Framework” developed to provide guidance for a Board-initiated GNSO PDP to define the purpose of collecting, maintaining and providing access to gTLD registration data, and consider safeguards for protecting data, using the recommendations in the EWG Final Report as input/foundation for new gTLD policy. > > • Next Generation Registration Directory Service—Expert Working Group on gTLD Directory Services (EWG), created under Board direction, issued their report, “A Next-Generation Registration Directory Service (RDS”), after exhaustive research and community consultation, to help redefine the purpose and provision of gTLD registration data, and develop a potential new model to replace today’s WHOIS system. > > • Preliminary Issue Report—To move forward with the PDP on Next-Generation gTLD Registration Directory Services to Replace WHOIS (above) a Preliminary Issue Report was submitted to the GNSO Council and is now open for public comment > > • Two-Pronged Approach to WHOIS—In 2012 the Board adopted a two-pronged approach to address the recommendations of the first WHOIS Review Team, calling for ICANN to (i) continue to fully enforce existing consensus policy and contractual conditions relating to WHOIS (See Action Plan), and (ii) create an expert working group to determine the fundamental purpose and objectives of collecting, maintaining and providing access to gTLD registration data, to serve as a foundation for a Board-initiated GNSO PDP. > > • Strategic Priority—WHOIS is emphasized in ICANN’s Strategic Plan and funded in its Operating Plans and Budgets. > > • RAA— Adoption of a new 2013 Registrar Accreditation Agreement, which includes many Compliance and WHOIS related enhancements, such as stricter validation and verification requirements. > > • Registry Agreements— Adoption of a New gTLD Registry Agreement requiring registrars to use 2013 RAA and incorporate many WHOIS improvements, and transition of 2013 RAA into existing registry agreements. > > • New IETF Protocol—IETF’s WEIRDS finalized the new Registration Data Access Protocol (RDAP) that will replace the (port-43) WHOIS protocol. > > • Privacy & Proxy Services—A public comment period recently closed on the Initial Report of a GNSO Working Group on issues relating to the accreditation of privacy and proxy service providers; ICANN has committed to developing and implementing such a program. > > • Translation/Transliteration of Contact Info—A public comment period recently closed on recommendations from the GNSO’s PDP on Translation and Transliteration of Contact Information regarding gTLD non-ASCII script contact information. > > • WHOIS Accuracy Reporting System—Work is ongoing to develop a WHOIS Accuracy Reporting System (ARS), following-up on the Pilot Study for WHOIS Accuracy Reporting System that was released last year. > > [1] See https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=54692681 > > [2] https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/affirmation-of-commitments-2009-09-30… > > > > _______________________________________________ > Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list > Accountability-Cross-Community(a)icann.org > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community

2 2