[council] For your review: Draft Response - Registration Directory Service Review Team (RDS-WHOIS2-RT) Final Recommendations

[PAMELALITTLE]

Dear Marie,

Thank you for the edits and comments from the BC. I have updated the draft for your further review and consideration.

1.  Recommendation CC.1 - While I agree the Council is actively working to identify the appropriate mechanisms or processes to deal with EPDP Phase 2 Priority 2 issues (including data accuracy), we have not reached any consensus or conclusion yet. I hope the updated language more accurately reflects where things are right now. 

2. Recommendation CC.4 - I have added a sentence to address BC's comment, although I feel this is not within Council's remit. Please feel free to add additional language or make further edits.

I would be happy to jump on a call to discuss if you think that would be helpful. 


Kind regards,

Pam
------------------------------------------------------------------
Sender:Marie Pattullo <marie.pattullo at aim.be>
Sent At:2020 Jun. 24 (Wed.) 02:07
Recipient:Caitlin Tubergen <caitlin.tubergen at icann.org>; council at gnso.icann.org <council at gnso.icann.org>
Subject:Re: [council] For your review: Draft Response - Registration Directory Service Review Team (RDS-WHOIS2-RT) Final Recommendations


Dear Caitlin, dear all

Many thanks for the attached draft. On behalf of the BC:

1. Recommendation CC.1: Our concerns around inaccurate registrant data, of which this is another aspect,are well known – as are those of other parts of the community, including the GAC (noting their comments and letter during ICANN68).
· Substance: As the RT said, if the WHOIS record is public then the true status should be on display with the notation: “domain name is suspended due to incorrect data”. Further, in such cases the registrar should not be able to remove the suspension without receiving confirmation that the data was correct. 
· Process: while your explanation that the wider subject of accuracy is (unfortunately) not going to be dealt with by the current EPDP is correct, the phrase “If and when the Council decides to request an Issue Report on data accuracy” is quite dismissive and could be read as this subject being put permanently on ice. In the light of the concerns expressed, inter alia, by the BC and the GAC, could we be more proactive? Suggested amendment:
“If and when [T]he Council is actively discussing the need for, and scope of, decides to request an Issue Report on data accuracy, in which Recommendation CC.1 could be included for consideration, if this item has not been addressed in the next round of contractual negotiations between ICANN org and the Contracted Parties (as directed by the Board).”

2. Recommendation CC.4: it should not be contentious that any adopted policy should be measured, audited, tracked, reported and enforced. Unfortunately, many policies have gone into effect without anyone in Compliance tracking (etc.) whether they are complied with in practice, which does seem to render the effort to adopt those policies as redundant. Not stating that in our reply seems to be a missed opportunity.

As ever, we’re happy to discuss this further.

Best
Marie


From: council <council-bounces at gnso.icann.org> On Behalf Of Caitlin Tubergen
Sent: Friday, June 12, 2020 12:11 AM
To: council at gnso.icann.org
Subject: [council] For your review: Draft Response - Registration Directory Service Review Team (RDS-WHOIS2-RT) Final Recommendations
SENT ON BEHALF OF COUNCIL LEADERSHIP 

Dear Councilors:

Please find attached a draft response to the ICANN Board re: the two Registration Directory Service Review Team (RDS-WHOIS2-RT) Final Recommendations passed through to the GNSO Council from the ICANN Board.

Keith, Pam, and Rafik have kindly provided a draft for your review. 

Please review the draft and provide suggested edits (if any) by Thursday, 25 June. 

Thank you.

Best regards,

Caitlin Tubergen
Policy Senior Manager, GNSO Support






From: Caitlin Tubergen <caitlin.tubergen at icann.org>
Date: Wednesday, March 18, 2020 at 3:24 PM
To: <council at gnso.icann.org>
Subject: Board action - Registration Directory Service Review Team (RDS-WHOIS2-RT) Final Recommendations

Sent on behalf of the  Multi-stakeholder Strategy & Strategic Initiatives (MSSI) department:
Dear GNSO Councillors,
The purpose of this note is to highlight the 25 February 2020 Board action on the Registration Directory Service Review Team (RDS-WHOIS2-RT) Final Recommendations - see https://www.icann.org/resources/board-material/resolutions-2020-02-25-en. 
ICANN org wishes to notify you that the ICANN Board resolved to pass through two recommendations to the GNSO Council, in whole or in part, for your consideration, as documented in the scorecard associated with the Board resolution. Specifically, please see below Recommendations CC.1 and CC.4
RDS-WHOIS2 Recommendation CC.1: “The ICANN Board should initiate action intended to ensure that gTLD domain names suspended due to RDS (WHOIS) contact data which the registrar knows to be incorrect, and that remains incorrect until the registration is due for deletion, should be treated as follows: (1) The RDS (WHOIS) record should include a notation that the domain name is suspended due to incorrect data; and (2) Domain names with this notation should not be unsuspended without correcting the data.”
Board resolution: The Board approved this recommendation and directed this item “to be included in the next round of contractual negotiations with the Contracted Parties”, with a note that “it cannot require or guarantee any negotiation outcomes”. The Board also noted that “this is an area that the GNSO Council might wish to take into a policy development process separate from any recourse to the policy development process that might be incorporated into the negotiation process”, and passed through this recommendation to the GNSO Council “for purposes of considering such initiation”.
Recommendation CC.4: “The ICANN Board should recommend the GNSO adopt a risk-based approach to incorporating requirements for measurement, auditing, tracking, reporting and enforcement in all new RDS policies.”
Board resolution: The Board passed the recommendation through to the GNSO Council, “with reference to documentation of clarifications received from RDS-WHOIS2 Implementation Shepherds in the 29 January 2020 discussion with the RDS Board Caucus Group”, i.e. “this recommendation could be directed to the GNSO”.
Additionally, we would like to highlight the following language of the Board resolution: “in passing this recommendation through, the Board is neither accepting nor rejecting the recommendation. The Board is careful to respect the remit and roles of the different parts of the ICANN community and is not directing Board or ICANN org action that would usurp another group's remit”. These recommendations are for your consideration.
Background

The Registration Directory Service (RDS) Review is one of the four Specific Reviews anchored in Section 4.6 of the ICANN Bylaws. 
The RDS-WHOIS2 Review Team (RDS-WHOIS2-RT) produced 22 final recommendations for Board consideration and released itsFinal Report on 3 September 2019. The RDS-WHOIS2-RT Final Report is the culmination of over two years of work by 11 review team members, representing over 1,000 hours of meetings and countless more hours of work. 
As required bysection 4.6 of ICANN Bylaws, the Final Report was published forpublic commentto inform Board action on the final recommendations.
The Board took action on each of the 22 recommendations produced by the RDS-WHOIS2-RT https://www.icann.org/resources/board-material/resolutions-2020-02-25-en. The Board’s action on each recommendation is documented in the scorecard published at https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/resolutions-board-action-rds-whois2-final-recs-25feb20-en.pdf.
We thank you for your collaboration and would welcome any updates on your progress in addressing, as appropriate, these recommendations, to be included into ICANN org’s reporting. 
Please let us know whether you have any questions.
Thank you. 
Best regards,

Multi-stakeholder Strategy & Strategic Initiatives (MSSI) department


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/council/attachments/20200625/61383bbf/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Draft GNSO Council Response to RDS (WHOIS2) Review Team Recommendations_25June2020.docx
Type: application/octet-stream
Size: 30300 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/council/attachments/20200625/61383bbf/DraftGNSOCouncilResponsetoRDSWHOIS2ReviewTeamRecommendations_25June2020-0001.docx>