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

Tue Aug 18 13:47:56 UTC 2015

The area have been alluded to, and Steve said that specifics are forthcoming.

Alan

At 18/08/2015 07:35 AM, 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