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

Tue Aug 18 13:49:06 UTC 2015

Correct. The existing language basically says 
that we must work towards universal and complete 
accessibility of all Whois info, something that we KNOW is problematic.

Alan

At 18/08/2015 07:54 AM, Nigel Roberts wrote:
>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
>_______________________________________________
>Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
>Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
>https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community