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

Tue Aug 18 03:37:45 UTC 2015

Somewhere between the second and third.  Sent by me after internal coordination with my fellow board members and reflecting a consistent stream of board actions over the past few years.  We did not, however, pass a formal resolution.

My preference is for everyone to focus on the substance of the comment and not so much on the level of authority.

Steve Crocker

Sent from my iPhone

> On Aug 17, 2015, at 11:27 PM, Stephen Deerhake <sdeerhake at nic.as> wrote:
> 
> Thank you for this (and I do mean that, having been on the call that you
> reference).
> 
> I am a bit confused as to whether or not this is your opinion as an
> individual, or as an ICANN Board member, or if you are expressing the
> opinion of the ICANN Board.  There's a lot of first person expression in
> what you have written, but also a lot of "we", indicating 3rd person.  And
> the conclusion ("On behalf of the ICANN Board of Directors") suggests that
> this is a statement is being issued by the ICANN Board, and (naturally)
> "signed" by it's Chairperson.  
> 
> So which is it?
> 
> A personal statement by you as a member of the ICANN Community?
> 
> A personal statement by you as an ICANN Board Member?
> 
> Or a statement by the ICANN Board issued by you as the Chairperson?
> 
> 
> Best,
> 
> /Stephen Deerhake
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org
> [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Steve
> Crocker
> Sent: Monday, August 17, 2015 10:48 PM
> To: Accountability Cross Community
> <accountability-cross-community at icann.org>
> Cc: Steve Crocker <steve.crocker at icann.org>
> Subject: [CCWG-ACCT] ICANN comment re gTLD Directory Services and the ICANN
> Bylaws
> 
> 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