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

Tue Aug 18 11:54:22 UTC 2015

Never mind that the 2009 language would appear to contravene Data 
Protection laws in 30 or more countries . .

On 18/08/15 12:35, Avri Doria wrote:
> 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
>
> _______________________________________________
> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
>