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

Carlton Samuels carlton.samuels at gmail.com
Tue Jun 30 01:36:13 UTC 2020


Seeing I was a member of that RT, I am, for propriety's sake, obliged to
sit on my hands.

Carlton

==============================
*Carlton A Samuels*

*Mobile: 876-818-1799Strategy, Process, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround*
=============================


On Mon, Jun 29, 2020 at 6:17 PM Pam Little <pam.little at alibaba-inc.com>
wrote:

> Thank you Marie for your prompt response and BC's support for the
> revisions.
>
> Dear Councilors - As we are aiming to send the correspondence to the Board
> this Friday, 3 July 2020, please provide any feedback or suggested edits by
> close of business Thursday 2 July 2020 (your local time).
>
> Kind regards,
>
> Pam
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------
> Sender:Marie Pattullo <marie.pattullo at aim.be>
> Sent At:2020 Jun. 27 (Sat.) 00:13
> Recipient:PAMELALITTLE <pam.little at alibaba-inc.com>
> Cc: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
>
> Thanks so much Pam – really appreciate your willingness to consider the
> BC’s comments. We’re happy with your redraft.
>
> Wishing everyone a peaceful non-return home but return to your usual
> working hours!
>
> Best
>
> Marie
>
>
>
> *From:* PAMELALITTLE <pam.little at alibaba-inc.com>
> *Sent:* Thursday, June 25, 2020 6:59 AM
> *To:* Marie Pattullo <marie.pattullo at aim.be>
> *Cc:* Caitlin Tubergen <caitlin.tubergen at 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 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
> <https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/resolutions-board-action-rds-whois2-final-recs-25feb20-en.pdf>
> associated with the Board resolution
> <https://www.icann.org/resources/board-material/resolutions-2020-02-25-en>.
> 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
> <https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/rds-whois2-review-03sep19-en.pdf>
> 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
> <https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/governance/bylaws-en/#article4.6>
> of ICANN Bylaws, the Final Report was published forpublic comment
> <https://www.icann.org/public-comments/rds-whois2-rt-final-report-2019-10-08-en>to
> 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
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> council mailing list
> council at gnso.icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/council
>
> _______________________________________________
> By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your
> personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance
> with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and
> the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can
> visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or
> configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or
> disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/council/attachments/20200629/69e8e8d8/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the council mailing list