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

Tue Aug 18 12:13:12 UTC 2015

Thanks for the context & clarification, Steve.

And I generally support the sentiment behind this position, which reminded
of the numerous policies and contract provisions requiring Registrars to
confirm/validate registrant ID and actions via email.  At a time when the
industry is innovating new ways to communicate with its customers (mobile,
social, apps, etc.) it is unwise to handcuff the future to contemporary
technologies, and their associated shortcomings.  WHOIS is no exception.

Thanks‹

J.

On 8/17/15, 22:37 , "accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org on
behalf of Steve Crocker" <accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org
on behalf of steve.crocker at icann.org> wrote:

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