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

[Avri Doria]

Hi,

Has the suggested modified language been floated yet?

avri

On 18-Aug-15 00:14, Alan Greenberg wrote:
> 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
>
> _______________________________________________
> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
>
>


---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus