[IPC-GNSO] [CCWG-ACCT] ICANN comment re gTLD Directory Services and the ICANN Bylaws

Tue Aug 18 04:47:40 UTC 2015

Sorry, I meant CCWG-Accountability....

On Tuesday, August 18, 2015, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc at gmail.com> wrote:

> This was sent to the CWG-Stewardship email list this evening.
>
> Greg
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: *Steve Crocker* <steve.crocker at icann.org
> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','steve.crocker at icann.org');>>
> Date: Monday, August 17, 2015
> Subject: [CCWG-ACCT] ICANN comment re gTLD Directory Services and the
> ICANN Bylaws
> To: Accountability Cross Community <
> accountability-cross-community at icann.org
> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','accountability-cross-community at icann.org');>
> >
> Cc: Steve Crocker <steve.crocker at icann.org
> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','steve.crocker at 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-en
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/ipc-gnso/attachments/20150818/65f9ba10/attachment-0001.html>