[ispcp] WG: Whois Review Team Final Report

Thu Aug 23 18:39:36 UTC 2012

All,

I'd like to share some discussion going on within the council. I was supporting the IPC draft letter to the board, in particular re Rec #10.
It would be great to get some feedback from your side in order to get stuffed for the next council call where we may discuss the draft letter.

Best regards
Wolf-Ulrich

________________________________
Von: Neuman, Jeff [mailto:Jeff.Neuman at neustar.us]
Gesendet: Donnerstag, 23. August 2012 18:32
An: Stéphane Van Gelder; Knoben, Wolf-Ulrich
Cc: bwinterfeldt at steptoe.com; wendy at seltzer.com; rickert at anwaelte.de; glen at icann.org
Betreff: RE: Whois Review Team Final Report

All,

Brian - Thanks for getting this first draft done.  Please find enclosed some comments to the current draft which reflect the views of the registries (and not necessarily a personal view).

a.       Recommendation #2:  With respect to Recommendation #2 (a single policy doc), the registries believe that if this is just creating a document that summarizes all relevant WHOIS policies, we agree no PDP is required.  If this means the creation of a new single policy, then a PDP should be required.

b.      Recommendation #4:  Questioning the recommendation of having the head of compliance report to a Board Committee.  That is moving the Board into a management functions, which is not only very odd, but completely inefficient.  If the WHOIS RT does not trust management to be able to do their job, then that should be in their recommendations (i.e., get better management).  But having a board committee oversee employees is unprecedented (given it is a volunteer board) and would cause incredible delays.

c.       Recommendation #6:  We believe the recommendation for ICANN taking "appropriate measures to reduce the number of WHOIS registrations that fall into the accuracy groups Substantial Failure and Full Failure) may require a PDP depending on what these measures are.

d.      Recommendation #10  The Registries strongly believe that it is ONLY through the PDP process that ICANN can initiate processes to regulate and oversee privacy and proxy serve providers.  This is opposite to Brian's draft #10.  So, we believe all of Recommendation 10 does in fact need a PDP without any time constraints as Brian's draft indicates.

e.      With respect to Recommendation 12, that work is already underway, so rather than wording it the way it is below, we can state our agreement and that work is already underway to achieve this.

So it seems like the biggest issue with be with Recommendation 10, which is where I believe the Commercial Stake Holder Group and the Contracted Parties differ significantly.  If that is the case, it may not be possible to comment on that recommendation as a Council or to just put in the view points from the different parties.

I look forward to hearing your feedback.

Thanks.

Jeffrey J. Neuman
Neustar, Inc. / Vice President, Business Affairs

From: Stéphane Van Gelder [mailto:stephane.vangelder at indom.com]
Sent: Thursday, August 23, 2012 10:29 AM
To: KnobenW at telekom.de
Cc: bwinterfeldt at steptoe.com; wendy at seltzer.com; rickert at anwaelte.de; Neuman, Jeff; Glen at icann.org
Subject: Re: Whois Review Team Final Report

Thanks to Brian and all who have worked on this.

Brian, can you please forward the latest version of the draft to the full Council list so that we can then be in a position to approve by the August 31st deadline?

Thanks,

Stéphane Van Gelder
Directeur Général / General manager
INDOM Group NBT France
----------------
Registry Relations and Strategy Director
Group NBT

Le 21 août 2012 à 21:19, <KnobenW at telekom.de<mailto:KnobenW at telekom.de>> <KnobenW at telekom.de<mailto:KnobenW at telekom.de>> a écrit :

>From my side: support.

Best regards
Wolf-Ulrich

________________________________
Von: Marano, Phillip [mailto:Pmarano at steptoe.com] Im Auftrag von Winterfeldt, Brian
Gesendet: Donnerstag, 16. August 2012 21:15
An: stephane.vangelder at indom.com<mailto:stephane.vangelder at indom.com>
Cc: wendy at seltzer.com<mailto:wendy at seltzer.com>; rickert at anwaelte.de<mailto:rickert at anwaelte.de>; Knoben, Wolf-Ulrich; Jeff.Neuman at neustar.us<mailto:Jeff.Neuman at neustar.us>; Glen at icann.org<mailto:Glen at icann.org>
Betreff: RE: Whois Review Team Final Report
Dear all:

As promised, here is an initial suggested written response providing input to the ICANN Board on the WHOIS RT Final Report.  Apologies for the delay.

We attempted to pinpoint, and also provide clarity on, those recommendations involving a level of ambiguity with regard to whether a GNSO policy development process is necessary.

We look forward to your input, and any suggested amendments toward achieving consensus on the style or substance of this letter.

Thank you,

Brian

Brian J. Winterfeldt
bwinterfeldt at steptoe.com<mailto:bwinterfeldt at steptoe.com>
Steptoe

TO:  ICANN Board
FROM:  Chair of the GNSO Council
VIA:  GNSO Liaison to the ICANN Board

I hereby forward to you the written public input of the GNSO Council on the WHOIS Review Team Final Report pursuant to your resolution (2012.06.23.26) from the meeting in Prague, Czech Republic, requesting that the GNSO provide such input by 31 August 2012.

As you are aware, the WHOIS Review Team's scope, guided by the Affirmation of Commitments, was to review the extent to which ICANN's WHOIS policy and its implementation are effective, meet legitimate needs of law enforcement and promote consumer trust.  To this end, the Final Report, which issued on 11 May 2012, contained sixteen recommendations.

During its meeting on 20 July 2012, the GNSO Council considered the substance of the WHOIS Review Team Final Report, as well as how to respond to the Board's request.  The GNSO Council recognizes, given the hard work and public input already incorporated into the Final Report, that there is a reasonable expectation by the Review Team for its recommendations be implemented as soon as practicable.  However, the GNSO Council also recognizes that a small number of the Review Team's recommendations may require future GNSO policy development.  Accordingly, the written input this letter is intended to clarify potential ambiguity and assist the Board in determining which Review Team recommendations are matters of GNSO policy development versus which recommendations are matters of staff implementation or negotiation with contracted parties.

2.     Single WHOIS Policy.  The Review Team's second recommendation calls for the Board to oversee creation of a single WHOIS policy document, and reference it in agreements with Contracted Parties, as well as clearly document the current gTLD WHOIS policy as set out in the gTLD Registry & Registrar contracts & Consensus Policies and Procedure.

The GNSO Council notes that this recommendation carefully avoids the phrase "policy development."  It asks for documentation of the existing policy set forth in the contracts and consensus policies.  It does not ask for the GNSO council to review or develop any policies.  Accordingly, the GNSO Council believes that this is not a recommendation for further GNSO policy development.

3.     Outreach.  The Review Team's third recommendation calls for ICANN to ensure that WHOIS policy issues are accompanied by cross-community outreach, including outreach to the communities outside of ICANN with a specific interest in the issues, and an ongoing program for consumer awareness.

The GNSO Council views this recommendation as a modifier, or supplement, to a number of other recommendations in the Final Report.  Accordingly, the GNSO Council believes that this is not a recommendation necessitating GNSO policy development.

10.  Data Access - Privacy and Proxy Services.  The Review Team's tenth recommendation essentially calls for ICANN to initiate processes to regulate and oversee privacy and proxy service providers; processes should be developed in consultation with all interested stakeholders and note relevant GNSO studies; a possible approach to achieving this would be to establish an accreditation system for all proxy/privacy service providers, and consider the merits (if any) of establishing or maintaining a distinction between privacy and proxy services; goal is to provide clear, consistent and enforceable requirements for the operation of these services consistent with national laws, and to strike an appropriate balance between stakeholders with competing but legitimate interests-including privacy, data protection, law enforcement, the industry around law enforcement and the human rights community.

The GNSO Council acknowledges that this recommendation can be read to describe a GNSO policy development process.  However, in recognition of the contemporaneous negotiation of the RAA, the GNSO Council recommends that-notwithstanding any GNSO policy development process on this recommendation-ICANN retain its authority to unilaterally impose regulation of privacy and proxy services pursuant to the RAA in the event that no consensus policy has been reached in a reasonably time frame, such as twelve months from 31 August 2012.

12.  Internationalized Domain Names.  The Review Team's twelfth recommendation calls for ICANN to task a working group within six months of publication of their report, to determine appropriate internationalized domain name registration data requirements and evaluate available solutions; at a minimum, the data requirements should apply to all new gTLDs, and the working group should consider ways to encourage consistency of approach across the gTLD and (on a voluntary basis) ccTLD space; the working group should report within a year.

To dispel any potential confusion, the GNSO Council wishes to clarify that this recommendation does not establish a GNSO policy development process.  It establishes a technical development process that is already underway.

The GNSO Council welcomes comments from the Board concerning this input.

Stéphane Van Gelder
Chair, GNSO Council

From: Marano, Phillip On Behalf Of Winterfeldt, Brian
Sent: Wednesday, August 08, 2012 10:54 AM
To: stephane.vangelder at indom.com<mailto:stephane.vangelder at indom.com>
Cc: wendy at seltzer.com<mailto:wendy at seltzer.com>; rickert at anwaelte.de<mailto:rickert at anwaelte.de>; KnobenW at telekom.de<mailto:KnobenW at telekom.de>; Jeff.Neuman at neustar.us<mailto:Jeff.Neuman at neustar.us>;Glen at icann.org<mailto:Glen at icann.org>
Subject: RE: Whois Review Team Final Report

Dear Stéphane:

Thank you for the reminder.  I hope to have an initial draft to Wendy, Thomas, Wolf-Ulrich and Jeff by the end of the week for comments and input before circulation to the entire Council.  I hope that time frame is acceptable.

Thank you,

Brian

Brian J. Winterfeldt
bwinterfeldt at steptoe.com<mailto:bwinterfeldt at steptoe.com>
Steptoe

From: Stéphane Van Gelder <stephane.vangelder at indom.com<mailto:stephane.vangelder at indom.com>>
Date: August 7, 2012 3:53:14 PM EDT
To: "Winterfeldt, Brian" <bwinterfeldt at steptoe.com<mailto:bwinterfeldt at steptoe.com>>
Cc: Wendy Seltzer <wendy at seltzer.com<mailto:wendy at seltzer.com>>, Thomas Rickert <rickert at anwaelte.de<mailto:rickert at anwaelte.de>>, Wolf-Ulrich Knoben <KnobenW at telekom.de<mailto:KnobenW at telekom.de>>, Neuman Jeff <Jeff.Neuman at neustar.us<mailto:Jeff.Neuman at neustar.us>>, Glen de Saint Géry <Glen at icann.org<mailto:Glen at icann.org>>
Subject: Whois Review Team Final Report
Brian,

This email is just a reminder of the following action item we have from our previous meeting and which must be concluded by August 31:

The GNSO Council should provide a written response to the ICANN Board by 31 August 2012.  An initial draft of the letter should be sent to the Council mailing list for further discussion before the letter is approved and sent to the Board.
Brian Winterfeldt, as the lead assisted by Wendy Seltzer and Thomas Rickert, volunteered to draft the initial response which will be sent to the Council mailing list for comments.

Thanks,

Stéphane Van Gelder
Directeur Général / General manager
INDOM Group NBT France
----------------
Head of Domain Operations
Group NBT

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/ispcp/attachments/20120823/b83c5f7f/attachment.html>