[IAG-WHOIS conflicts] Draft report

Fri Jul 10 05:55:59 UTC 2015

Thankyou. Marika. I did not know that.
I shall defer any further comment until after the forthcoming conference calls.

Regards

CW

On 09 Jul 2015, at 21:54, Marika Konings <marika.konings at icann.org> wrote:

> Christopher, for your information, in relation to the EWG Final Report the ICANN Board reaffirmed its request for a Preliminary Issue Report on next generation registration directory services on 26 April (see resolution below). Staff is in the process of preparing the Preliminary Issue Report, which is the first step in a GNSO Policy Development Process, which will be published for public comment shortly.
> 
> Best regards,
> 
> Marika
> 
> https://www.icann.org/resources/board-material/resolutions-2015-04-26-en#1.f 
> Next Steps for the EWG Final Report on Next Generation Registration Directory Services
> 
> Whereas, in 2012, the Board adopted a two-pronged approach to address the recommendations of the WHOIS Review Team, calling for ICANN to (i) continue to fully enforce existing consensus policy and contractual conditions relating to WHOIS, 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 policy development process (PDP).
> Whereas, in 2014, the Expert Working Group on Next Generation Registration Directory Services (EWG) delivered its Final Report [PDF, 5.12 MB] to the Board with its recommended model and principles to serve as the foundation for the GNSO PDP.
> Whereas, an informal group of Board members and GNSO Councilors collaborated and developed a proposed framework [PDF, 612 KB] to provide guidance to the GNSO PDP for the examination of the EWG's recommended models and principles for the next generation registration directory services to replace WHOIS.
> Resolved (2015.04.26.09), the Board thanks the EWG for the significant effort and work exerted that produced the proposed model for a next generation registration directory services as reflected in its Final Report [PDF, 5.12 MB].
> Resolved (2015.04.26.10), the Board reaffirms its request for a Board-initiated GNSO policy development process 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 Final Report [PDF, 5.12 MB] as an input to, and, if appropriate, as the foundation for a new gTLD policy;
> Resolved (2015.04.26.11), the Board directs that a new Preliminary Issue Report that follows this framework [PDF, 612 KB] be prepared and delivered to the GNSO;
> Resolved (2015.04.26.12), the Board commits to forming a group of Board members that will (i) liaise with the GNSO on the policy development process to examine the EWG's recommended model and propose policies to support the creation of the next generation registration directory services, and (ii) oversee the implementation of the remaining projects arising from the Action Plan [PDF, 119 KB] adopted by the Board in response to the WHOIS Review Team's recommendations. The Board directs the Board Governance Committee to begin the process for identifying a recommendation of a slate of Board members to do this work.
> Rationale for Resolutions 2015.04.26.09-2015.04.26.12
> 
> Why the Board is addressing the issue?
> This resolution continues the Board's attention to the implementation of the Action Plan [PDF, 119 KB] adopted by the Board in response to the WHOIS Review Team's recommendations [PDF, 5.12 MB]. The resolution adopted today adopts a framework [PDF, 612 KB] to conduct a board-initiated GNSO policy development process to refine the purpose of collecting, maintaining and providing access to gTLD registration data, and consider safeguards for protecting data, using the recommendations of the Expert Working Group's Final Report [PDF, 5.12 MB] as an input to, if appropriate, to serve as the foundation for a new gTLD policy.
> What is the proposal being considered?
> Under the Affirmation of Commitments (AoC), ICANN is committed to enforcing its existing policy relating to WHOIS (subject to applicable laws), which "requires that ICANN implement measures to maintain timely, unrestricted and public access to accurate and complete WHOIS information…." The AoC obligates ICANN to organize no less frequently than every three years a community 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. Under this timeline, the second WHOIS Review Team is to be convened in late 2015.
> In 2012, in response to the recommendations of the first WHOIS Review Team, the Board adopted a two-prong approach that simultaneously directed ICANN to (1) implement improvements to the current WHOIS system based on the Action Plan [PDF, 119 KB] that was based on the recommendations of the WHOIS Review Team, and (2) launch a new effort, achieved through the creation of the Expert Working Group, to focus on the purpose and provision of gTLD directory services, to serve as the foundation of a Board-initiated GNSO policy development process (PDP).
> The Expert Working Group's Final Report [PDF, 5.12 MB] contains a proposed model and detailed principles to serve as the foundation for a PDP to support the creation of the next generation registration directory services to replace WHOIS.  This Final Report [PDF, 5.12 MB] contains over 160 pages of complex principles and recommendations to be considered in the GNSO PDP. In order to effectively manage the PDP on such a large scale, an informal group of Board members and GNSO councilors collaborated to develop the framework [PDF, 612 KB] approved today.
> What factors did the Board find to be significant?
> The complex nature of the EWG's recommendations, along with the contentiousness nature of the WHOIS issue in the ICANN community over the last ten+ years, calls for a very structured approach to conducting a policy development process of this magnitude. The framework [PDF, 612 KB] provides guidance to the GNSO on how to best structure the resulting PDP(s) for success – that is, it proposes a process which leads to new policies defining the purpose of gTLD registration data and improving accuracy, privacy, and access to that data.
> This framework [PDF, 612 KB] creates a 3-phased approach to conducting the PDP, with Phase 1 focusing on definition of the policy requirements, Phase 2 focusing on the functional design elements of the policy, and Phase 3 focusing on implementation of the policies and providing guidance during an expected transition period during which the legacy WHOIS system and the next generation registration directory services may coexist and both operational at the same time. The Board believes that following the framework [PDF, 612 KB] will ensure that the PDP will properly address the many significant issues and interdependencies that require consideration in order to support the creation of the next generation registration directory services.
> The Board recognizes that additional resources may be needed for the conduct of this unique policy development process. The Board commits to reviewing the GNSO's proposed plan and schedule, as well as Staff's assessment of the resources required to implement this proposed plan, and to supporting appropriate resourcing for the conduct of this PDP.
> In addition, the Board believes that the importance of the WHOIS issue, along with the breadth and scope of the many WHOIS activities currently under way, support the need for a designated group of Board members dedicated to overseeing the entire WHOIS Program, including working with the community on the GNSO PDP, and any future transition to a next generation registration directory services that may emerge following the GNSOPDP.  Community members participating in the informal Board-GNSO Council effort to develop the framework for the PDP also requested the Board's continued involvement in this effort.
> What significant materials did the Board review?
> The Board reviewed the EWG Final Report [PDF, 5.12 MB], the framework [PDF, 612 KB] developed through the informal collaboration between the Board and the GNSO Council, and the Briefing Papers submitted by Staff.
> Are there fiscal impacts or ramifications on ICANN (strategic plan, operating plan, or budget)?
> The initiation of focused work on WHOIS and the creation of policies to support the next generation of registration directory services are expected to have an impact on financial resources as the research and work progresses. Due to the expected complexity of this PDP, there is a potential that this PDP may have higher resource needs than other PDPs, though the full extent of those resource needs are not fully understood, particularly as to the scope of those resources in comparison to the resources proposed for allocation within the upcoming fiscal year for this effort. The Board commits to reviewing staff's assessment of resources for the conduct of this PDP (after there is a plan and schedule developed) with a view towards providing appropriate resourcing for the conduct of this PDP.
> Are there any security, stability or resiliency issues relating to the DNS?
> This action is not expected to have an immediate impact on the security, stability or resiliency of the DNS, though the outcomes of this work may result in positive impacts.
> Is public comment required prior to Board action?
> As this is a continuation of prior Board actions, public comment is not necessary prior to adoption.  A public comment period will be commenced, as required by the ICANN Bylaws, once the Preliminary Issue Report is published by Staff, thereby allowing the framework [PDF, 612 KB] approved today to be adjusted as appropriate prior to delivery of the Final Issue Report to the GNSO.
> 
> From: <whois-iag-volunteers-bounces at icann.org> on behalf of Christopher Wilkinson <cw at christopherwilkinson.eu>
> Date: Thursday 9 July 2015 20:36
> To: Jamie Hedlund <jamie.hedlund at icann.org>
> Cc: Fadi Chehade <fadi.chehade at icann.org>, Cherine Chalaby <cherine.chalaby at icann.org>, John Jeffrey <john.jeffrey at icann.org>, "bruce.tonkin at melbourneit.com.au" <bruce.tonkin at melbourneit.com.au>, "whois-iag-volunteers at icann.org" <whois-iag-volunteers at icann.org>, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca>, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond <ocl at gih.com>, "steve at shinkuro.com" <steve at shinkuro.com>
> Subject: Re: [IAG-WHOIS conflicts] Draft report
> 
> Hmmm … 
> 
> 1. The "underlying policy" was adopted by GNSO ten years ago. It was already 'out of scope' at the time in the light of pre-existing privacy laws.
> 
> http://gnso.icann.org/en/issues/whois-privacy/council-rpt-18jan06.htm
> 
> Incidentally, that document does not contain the six pages of trigger-mania that has regaled the IAG discussions. Where that came from is still not clear.
> 
> 2. The IAG mission, as interpreted by the staff, is so narrow as to ensure that many of us are just wasting our time. I suggested at an earlier stage that ICANN staff please write down on one page what are your essential requirements so that we could discuss that. Instead you have issued 15 pages that we cannot endorse.
> 
> 3. The EWG recommendations were published one year ago. Why are you wasting our time on IAG when you still propose (do you?) to initiate another procedure on EWG?
> 
> 4. I am not aware of having expressed any 'desire to restructure the GNSO'. That is a matter for ICANN.
> 
> Best regards
> 
> Christopher
> 
> 
> On 09 Jul 2015, at 19:07, Jamie Hedlund <jamie.hedlund at icann.org> wrote:
> 
>> Thanks, Christopher. I invite you to review the scope and mission of this IAG, available at https://community.icann.org/display/WNLCI/WHOIS+and+national+law+conflicts+IAG+Home. 
>> 
>> From what I can discern from your comments, you would like this group to tackle issues that are or could be the subject of policy development. As you know, there is the ongoing work of the EWG to develop a replacement for WHOIS. The GNSO could decide to initiate a PDP to address the policy underlying the WHOIS Conflicts Procedure. Regarding your desire to restructure the GNSO, the GNSO is subject to regular reviews. 
>> 
>> All of this is to say that you and the community have multiple opportunities to provide input into all of the subjects that are of interest. But the purpose of this IAG is fairly narrow. It is limited by the policy itself which calls for annual reviews of the Procedure. It does not call for a review of the Procedure’s underlying policy, WHOIS, or the GNSO. Those happen in other community fora. We hope you will actively participate in those as well.
>> 
>> Best,
>> Jamie
>> 
>> Jamie Hedlund
>> VP, Strategic Programs
>> Global Domains Division
>> ICANN
>> +1.202.374.3969 (m)
>> +1.202.570.7125 (d)
>> jamie.hedlund at icann.org
>> 
>> From: Christopher Wilkinson <cw at christopherwilkinson.eu>
>> Date: Thursday, July 9, 2015 at 12:50
>> To: Jamie Hedlund <jamie.hedlund at icann.org>
>> Cc: "whois-iag-volunteers at icann.org" <whois-iag-volunteers at icann.org>, Steve Crocker <steve at shinkuro.com>, Fadi Chehade <fadi.chehade at icann.org>, Cherine Chalaby <cherine.chalaby at icann.org>, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca>, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond <ocl at gih.com>, John Jeffrey <john.jeffrey at icann.org>
>> Subject: Re: [IAG-WHOIS conflicts] Draft report
>> 
>> Dear Jamie: Allow me, for a moment, to abstract totally  from all subject matter and any opinions in this regard, including my own.
>> 
>> Nevertheless, if ICANN staff consider that they are authorised to ignore qualified public input simply on the grounds that it is "out of scope" (determined by who?),
>> then you are well on the way to driving a large wedge between the organisation and the community. 
>> 
>> in other proximate and recent discussions the matter of accountability and mutual confidence has been raised. I do not need to go into details.
>> But if your response is an example of the general attitude of ICANN staff, then we - indeed -  do have a problem. The resolution of which could very well turn out to be far less favourable to the organisation than that which would otherwise be necessary.
>> 
>> I invite you and your colleagues to give this issue your serious consideration, soon.
>> 
>> Regards
>> 
>> Christopher
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> On 09 Jul 2015, at 17:47, Jamie Hedlund <jamie.hedlund at icann.org> wrote:
>> 
>>> Christopher,
>>> 
>>> Thank you for your comments. As has been repeatedly discussed within the IAG, the scope of the work is limited to consideration of potential improvements to the existing WHOIS Conflicts Procedure. The existing WHOIS policy, the Procedure’s underlying Policy, adoption of globally, international best privacy practices, and the work of the EWG are all outside the scope of the IAG’s mandate. On our call on Monday it would be appropriate to discuss your point 1 below. As the remainder of your points are out of scope, I would recommend that they not be included in the agenda.
>>> 
>>> Best,
>>> Jamie
>>> 
>>> Jamie Hedlund
>>> VP, Strategic Programs
>>> Global Domains Division
>>> ICANN
>>> +1.202.374.3969 (m)
>>> +1.202.570.7125 (d)
>>> jamie.hedlund at icann.org
>>> 
>>> From: Christopher Wilkinson <cw at christopherwilkinson.eu>
>>> Date: Thursday, July 9, 2015 at 11:21
>>> To: "whois-iag-volunteers at icann.org" <whois-iag-volunteers at icann.org>
>>> Cc: Jamie Hedlund <jamie.hedlund at icann.org>
>>> Subject: Re: [IAG-WHOIS conflicts] Draft report
>>> 
>>> Good afternoon:
>>> 
>>> I would be glad to thank the ICANN staff for their efforts in producing this draft report, were it not that a large part of the IAG-Whois discussion has been totally ignored.
>>> I think it is clear from the record that I could not possibly accept this draft as a basis for further discussion in future IAG conference calls.
>>> 
>>> 1. On the basis of the discussion that I have heard in the conference calls and on the mailing list, I suggest that this is at most a minority report.
>>> Before proceeding any further, I would request a formal, nominative, poll of all the Members of the IAG (paragraph 4.2) as to whether this draft is or is not a minority report.
>>> 
>>> 2. I request that the basic arguments that have been repeatedly expressed in the group as to why the present whois policy is not acceptable in large parts of the world, 
>>>   be recorded in detail for the benefit of the GNSO and the ICANN Board.
>>> 
>>> 3. The report should clarify that what is still blithely described as the "underlying policy" (paragraph 1.1) is inconsistent with privacy law in large parts of the world.
>>> 
>>> 4. With regard to the "stability and uniformity of the WHOIS system" (Paragraph 1.1) may I recall that I have proposed that either the burden of proof be reversed to the effect that ICANN must if necessary take the initiative to 'trigger' the procedure, or that ICANN should implement globally, international best practice privacy policy, world-wide.  Until these options have been thoroughly discussed, I do not see on what basis ICANN staff can issue a draft report on the interim outcome of the IAG.
>>> 
>>> 5. In this context, may I also request that the IAG - and our readers in the ICANN community - be informed, in our report, as to the procedure and schedule for the implementation of the recommendations of the EWG:
>>> 
>>> https://www.icann.org/news/blog/ewg-recommends-a-replacement-for-whois
>>> 
>>> As I understand it the system proposed by the EWG is aimed at:
>>> 
>>> Providing appropriate access to accurate, reliable, and uniform registration data.
>>> Protecting the privacy of personal information.
>>> Enabling a reliable mechanism for identifying, establishing and maintaining the ability to contact Registrants in order to guarantee accountability.
>>> Supporting a framework to address issues involving Registrants including, but not limited to, consumer protection, investigation of cybercrime and intellectual property protection.
>>> Providing an infrastructure to address appropriate law enforcement needs.
>>> 
>>> Best regards to you all
>>> 
>>> Christopher Wilkinson
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On 08 Jul 2015, at 21:00, Jamie Hedlund <jamie.hedlund at icann.org> wrote:
>>> 
>>>> All,
>>>> 
>>>> Attached please find a draft report for the IAG’s review and consideration. We propose that discussion of the draft be the sole agenda item for Monday’s call. If you have any comments or edits before then please feel free to send those to the mailing list. 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 at icann.org
>>>> <IAG Draft Report v2.docx><IAG Draft Report v2.pdf>_______________________________________________
>>>> Whois-iag-volunteers mailing list
>>>> Whois-iag-volunteers at icann.org
>>>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/whois-iag-volunteers
>>> 
>> 
> 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/whois-iag-volunteers/attachments/20150710/93f1521a/attachment-0001.html>