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

Tue Aug 18 04:09:56 UTC 2015

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


+1

thank you Steve for this  very clear substantive commentary and background on the cumulated efforts to strengthen the gTLD Directory Services

Carlos Raul


> 
> 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
> _______________________________________________
> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community