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

Tue Aug 18 13:16:34 UTC 2015

I strongly support Steve Crocker's view on who is.

"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"

The last few years of participating on an RIR mailing list on IP policy
issues has made me very aware of the ongoing need for whois policy
principles/language to evolve as the network dynamics change; and I think
that the IOT and global v6 may well have us all putting our thinking caps
on with reference to who is policy.

Rudi Daniel

On Aug 17, 2015 10:47 PM, "Steve Crocker" <steve.crocker at icann.org> 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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/attachments/20150818/a468b581/attachment.html>