<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40">
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
<meta name="Generator" content="Microsoft Word 14 (filtered medium)">
<style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:SimSun;
panose-1:2 1 6 0 3 1 1 1 1 1;}
@font-face
{font-family:SimSun;
panose-1:2 1 6 0 3 1 1 1 1 1;}
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Tahoma;
panose-1:2 11 6 4 3 5 4 4 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:"\@SimSun";
panose-1:2 1 6 0 3 1 1 1 1 1;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:purple;
text-decoration:underline;}
span.EmailStyle17
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";}
@page WordSection1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></style><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]-->
</head>
<body lang="EN-US" link="blue" vlink="purple">
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">This is an effort to walk back Crocker’s statement in the chat of the August 4 webinar that clearly objects to ICANN fulfilling its current obligations under
the Affirmation of Commitments to carry out a second Whois Review: <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">Steve Crocker: (14:04) @Steve DelB: Consistent with my comments, the answer to your question is yes, another whois review on the existing terms would be wrong
and destructive.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">The webinar transcript provides some context for this :
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">STEVE CROCKER: Yeah. So the idea of incorporating the AOC reviews into the bylaws is a good one. I fully support it. Well, the
point I’m going to make has been raised before, but not adequately dealt with. The SSR and the ATRT, the Accountability Transparency and the Security Stability Resiliency Reviews, are solid reviews that should be repeated, should be included in the bylaws.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"> The WHOIS review has a very deep and fundamental flaw that absolutely must not be included as
is. The idea of continuing to look at WHOIS is perfectly fine, but there has been an enormous amount of work and an enormous amount of money and time and energy spent trying to fix the – lead a path away from the, presumptions that are built in to the existing
language in the AOC document. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"> And perpetuating those words without addressing that would be an extreme mistake for consistency
if those are put in, that it would mean rolling back the work that the Expert Working Group has done, killing off the work that the GNSO is doing in policy development in this area, and in general, turning away from any attempt to improve the WHOIS system.
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"> There’s probably another discussion to have about the competition choice issue on the fourth
review, but I’m particularly concerned that it would be perpetuating a mistake that was first made in 2009 when the language was drafted, and the opportunity to fix it was pushed back, and I’m strongly opposed to including those words. It is a tiny, tiny,
tiny small point, but it is pretty fundamental to a serious piece of work that’s been underway for at least three years.
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">THOMAS RICKERT: Thanks very much, Steve. And in order to answer that question, I would like to hand over to Steve DelBianco, who’s
been the penholder for the [inaudible]. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">STEVE DELBIANCO: Thank you, Steve. Appreciate that point, and I know you brought it up a few times before, and the CCWG has two reactions
to it. The first is we are not perpetuating anything in the review. In fact, page 77 of the proposal suggests that the ATRT – that’s the Accountability and Transparency Review Team – will have the power to assess and make recommendations for terminating or
amending any of the other periodic reviews, including the WHOIS and Directory Services Review, and recommends additional periodic reviews. The idea there is to enable one of the review teams –the ATRT – to terminate or amend other reviews in just the way that
you’re suggesting. And, yet, that would be done as part of the ATRT’s review and public comment process.
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"> The second is that in bringing over the Affirmation of Commitments, we were very conscious to
bring over the AOC as close as possible to the commitment that ICANN has made in the AOC. And those commitments wanted to be preserved, at least until the community can review and amend them through the mechanism I just discussed.
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"> And, finally, I’ll note that in response to concerns like yours, we made sure not to incorporate
the commitments that are the front end of each of these reviews as part of the ICANN fundamental bylaws. Instead, they’re just part of the [text] surrounding the actual review. So the threshold for that change is, of course, much easier and lower. I really
think that it was a way for us to both honor our commitment to bring over the AOC and to still be flexible enough to change it over time. Thank you.
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">STEVE CROCKER: Thank you, Steve. I understand and appreciate the perspective you’re coming from. That is, from my perspective,
completely unacceptable. It is a passing of the ball. I understand you’re operating under pressure and I understand that you didn’t really want to think hard about it, but nonetheless, it is a disruptive and inappropriate thing to do.
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Wow.
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">It seems highly relevant to the transition/accountability discussion to clarify whether the Board (on whose behalf Crocker issued the statement below) supports
his stated position that ICANN should not comply with the terms of the AOC as currently in effect.
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">Steve Metalitz <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"">From:</span></b><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif""> ipc-gnso-bounces@icann.org [mailto:ipc-gnso-bounces@icann.org]
<b>On Behalf Of </b>Greg Shatan<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Tuesday, August 18, 2015 12:46 AM<br>
<b>To:</b> IPC-GNSO<br>
<b>Subject:</b> [IPC-GNSO] Fwd: [CCWG-ACCT] ICANN comment re gTLD Directory Services and the ICANN Bylaws<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">This was sent to the CWG-Stewardship email list this evening.<o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt">Greg<br>
<br>
---------- Forwarded message ----------<br>
From: <b>Steve Crocker</b> <<a href="mailto:steve.crocker@icann.org">steve.crocker@icann.org</a>><br>
Date: Monday, August 17, 2015<br>
Subject: [CCWG-ACCT] ICANN comment re gTLD Directory Services and the ICANN Bylaws<br>
To: Accountability Cross Community <<a href="mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org">accountability-cross-community@icann.org</a>><br>
Cc: Steve Crocker <<a href="mailto:steve.crocker@icann.org">steve.crocker@icann.org</a>><br>
<br>
<br>
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<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
The AoC[2] language regarding the Whois reviews that was crafted in 2009 states:<br>
<br>
> 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.<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
Steve Crocker<br>
<br>
On behalf of the ICANN Board of Directors<br>
<br>
==========================================================<br>
<br>
Selected list of actions, including IETF work on WEIRDS, to strengthen the gTLD Directory Services and to build a path toward possible structural improvements.<br>
<br>
• 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.<br>
<br>
• 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.<br>
<br>
• 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.<br>
<br>
• 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<br>
<br>
• 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.<br>
<br>
• Strategic Priority—WHOIS is emphasized in ICANN’s Strategic Plan and funded in its Operating Plans and Budgets.<br>
<br>
• RAA— Adoption of a new 2013 Registrar Accreditation Agreement, which includes many Compliance and WHOIS related enhancements, such as stricter validation and verification requirements.<br>
<br>
• 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.<br>
<br>
• New IETF Protocol—IETF’s WEIRDS finalized the new Registration Data Access Protocol (RDAP) that will replace the (port-43) WHOIS protocol.<br>
<br>
• 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.<br>
<br>
• 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.<br>
<br>
• 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.<br>
<br>
[1] See <a href="https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=54692681" target="_blank">
https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=54692681</a><br>
<br>
[2] <a href="https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/affirmation-of-commitments-2009-09-30-en" target="_blank">
https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/affirmation-of-commitments-2009-09-30-en</a><br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list<br>
<a href="javascript:;">Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org</a><br>
<a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community" target="_blank">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community</a><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
</body>
</html>