[IAG-WHOIS conflicts] [CCWG-ACCT] ICANN comment re gTLD Directory Services and the ICANN Bylaws

Wed Sep 2 17:45:12 UTC 2015

Hello Christopher and everyone  I thought I ought to clarify for everyone
that under the Affirmation of Commitments, ICANN is already obligated to
perform a periodic review of existing (i.e. then-current) WHOIS Policy.
Similarly, the various WHOIS-related activities noted by Steve Crocker in
his note to the CCWG-Accountability are already going on, and are not new.
For example, the question of updating or replacing the WHOIS service will
shortly be addressed by a GNSO Policy Development Process that has already
been requested by the ICANN Board. These ongoing activities all deal with
different aspects of WHOIS  with some on the policy side and some (like
this IAG) focusing on implementation issues.

Any new WHOIS Policy resulting from the Board-requested GNSO PDP would
presumably come within the scope of the next applicable round of review
under the Affirmation of Commitments. While further changes to overall WHOIS
Policy may well come from some of these ongoing activities, my understanding
is that they will not change the scope or regularity of the obligatory WHOIS
review under the Affirmation of Commitments.

I hope this is helpful.

Cheers
Mary

Mary Wong
Senior Policy Director
Internet Corporation for Assigned Names & Numbers (ICANN)
Telephone: +1 603 574 4889
Email: mary.wong at icann.org

From:  <whois-iag-volunteers-bounces at icann.org> on behalf of Christopher
Wilkinson <cw at christopherwilkinson.eu>
Date:  Thursday, September 3, 2015 at 01:11
To:  "whois-iag-volunteers at icann.org" <whois-iag-volunteers at icann.org>
Subject:  Re: [IAG-WHOIS conflicts] [CCWG-ACCT] ICANN comment re gTLD
Directory Services and the ICANN Bylaws

> Good afternoon: 
> 
> As some of you may have already noticed, the CCWG is also addressing WHOIS
> policy, as illustrated by the attached exchanges.
> These go to further enhance the concerns that I have already expressed about
> parallel processes within the ICANN environment addressing the same issues,
> not necessarily consistently.
> 
> I am also concerned about the suggestion for yet more 'reviews' of WHOIS
> policy, which risk exhausting the available time and good will through
> duplication and repetition.
> 
> Regards
> 
> CW
> 
> 
> 
> On 09/02/2015 02:31 AM, Steve DelBianco wrote:
>> Thanks, Bruce.  For comparison purposes, I pasted the CCWG¹s proposed
>> language below your text.
>> 
>> From: <accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org
>> <mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org>> on behalf of
>> Bruce Tonkin
>> Date: Tuesday, September 1, 2015 at 9:24 PM
>> To: "accountability-cross-community at icann.org
>> <mailto:accountability-cross-community at icann.org>"
>> Subject: [CCWG-ACCT] Proposed WHOIS language
>> 
>> Below is some suggested language regarding WHOIS reviews for
>> consideration by the CCWG when considering what to incorporate into the
>> bylaws regarding the AoC reviews.
>> 
>> Note the Board has no plans to cancel the current AoC - so the language
>> in the AoC -  still stands until the community and NTIA wish to change it.
>> 
>> This language however tries to contemplate an environment where we are
>> introducing a new gTLD Directory Service as a result of policy
>> development within  the GNSO, as well as most likely continuing to run
>> the existing WHOIS service for some time.
>> 
>> Regards,
>> Bruce Tonkin
>> 
>> ICANN commits to enforcing its policy relating to the current WHOIS and
>> any future gTLD Directory Service, subject to applicable laws, and
>> working with the community to explore structural changes to improve
>> accuracy and access to gTLD registration data, as well as consider
>> safeguards for protecting data.
>> 
>> This Review includes a commitment that becomes part of ICANN Bylaws,
>> regarding enforcement of the current WHOIS and any future gTLD Directory
>> Service policy requirements.
>> 
>> The Board shall cause a periodic Review to assess the extent to which
>> WHOIS/Directory Services policy is effective and its implementation
>> meets the legitimate needs of law enforcement, promotes consumer trust,
>> and safeguards data.
>> 
>> The Review Team shall assess the extent to which prior Review
>> recommendations have been completed, and the extent to which
>> implementation has had the intended effect.
>> 
>> This periodic Review shall be convened no less frequently than every
>> five years, measured from the date the Board took action on previous
>> review recommendations.
>> _______________________________________________
>>   From CCWG 2nd draft proposal, page 81:
>> 
>> ICANN commits to enforcing its existing policy relating to
>> WHOIS/Directory Services, 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.
>> 
>> The Board shall cause a periodic Review to assess the extent to which
>> WHOIS/Directory Services policy is effective and its implementation
>> meets the legitimate needs of law enforcement and promotes consumer trust.
>> 
>> This Review will consider the OECD guidelines regarding privacy, as
>> defined by the OECD in 1980 and amended in 2013.
>> 
>> The Review Team shall assess the extent to which prior Review
>> recommendations have been implemented.
>> 
>> This periodic Review shall be convened no less frequently than every
>> five years, measured from the date the previous Review was convened.
>> 
> _______________________________________________
> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
> On 18 Aug 2015, at 22:28, Christopher Wilkinson <cw at christopherwilkinson.eu>
> wrote:
> 
>> 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 at 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 at icann.org>
>>> Cc: Steve Crocker <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 ICANN¹s Bylaws. This may
>>> seem like a very specific detail amidst the myriad of ³larger² governance
>>> issues included in the CCWG proposal, so some may wonder why this merits
>>> attention.  I put ³larger² 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 we¹re 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 ICANN¹s 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 ICANN¹s Bylaws.
>>> 
>>> The current wording is tied to the original  may I say ³ancient?²  model
>>> that is sorely in need of overhaul.  I am of the strong opinion that we must
>>> not import into ICANN¹s 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 Services² 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 ³Process Framework²
>>> 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, ³A Next-Generation Registration Directory Service (RDS²), 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 today¹s 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 ICANN¹s 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‹IETF¹s 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 GNSO¹s 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/whois-iag-volunteers/attachments/20150902/dcff6ea6/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 5044 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/whois-iag-volunteers/attachments/20150902/dcff6ea6/smime-0001.p7s>