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

Tue Aug 18 04:14:54 UTC 2015

I strongly support this, and I have suggested 
that the ALAC support such a modification to that 
AoC Review Bylaws, along with another related 
change that AoC RTs have the authority to 
recommend changes to their respective Bylaws 
instead of vesting that authority in the ATRT.

Alan

At 17/08/2015 10:47 PM, Steve Crocker wrote:
>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