[Rt4-whois] Scope of Work

Tue Jan 4 19:13:04 UTC 2011

All,

 I’m concerned that we are straying, somewhat significantly from what we agreed to during our informal meeting. I see our scope becoming ever more specific as opposed to “open-ended” and “concise” as we discussed with rough agreement (and was reported<https://community.icann.org/display/whoisreview/Cartagena+-+Brainstorming+Notes>) during the Cartagena informal session.

I suggest we return to a concise scope, noting that we intend to be inclusive in our discussion, deliberation, and reporting.

I suggest the following:
__________________________

Scope

To assess the extent to which existing WHOIS policy and its implementation:

 *   is effective,
 *   meets the legitimate needs of law enforcement, and
 *   promotes consumer trust.

This assessment will include an analysis and determination of ICANN's performance against the AOC requirement 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.

Discussions, deliberations, and reporting will be conducted in a manner to facilitate inclusion of issues/concerns of the full range of stakeholders ensuring that the public interest is well-served.

From: rt4-whois-bounces at icann.org [mailto:rt4-whois-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of lynn at goodsecurityconsulting.com
Sent: Monday, January 03, 2011 10:22 AM
To: James M. Bladel
Cc: rt4-whois at icann.org
Subject: Re: [Rt4-whois] Scope of Work

Hi James,
My suggestion is that the element of "consumers" stated in our overall mission is relevant to "public interest".
-Lynn
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: RE: [Rt4-whois] Scope of Work
From: "James M. Bladel" <jbladel at godaddy.com<mailto:jbladel at godaddy.com>>
Date: Mon, January 03, 2011 1:01 pm
To: lynn at goodsecurityconsulting.com<mailto:lynn at goodsecurityconsulting.com>
Cc: rt4-whois at icann.org<mailto:rt4-whois at icann.org>, "Emily Taylor" <emily.taylor at etlaw.co.uk<mailto:emily.taylor at etlaw.co.uk>>
Team:

I guess I'm not entirely clear on the distinction between "Public Interest" and the "Interests of the Stakeholders."  In my view, the component organizations (GNSO, ccNSO, SSAC, ALAC, etc.) and their subordinate organizations & constituencies, were the components of the "Public Interests."  Or are we saying that this term is more than the sum of its parts?

Looking forward to some clarifying dialogue on this.

Thanks--

J.

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: [Rt4-whois] Scope of Work
From: <lynn at goodsecurityconsulting.com<mailto:lynn at goodsecurityconsulting.com>>
Date: Sun, January 02, 2011 5:54 pm
To: "Emily Taylor" <emily.taylor at etlaw.co.uk<mailto:emily.taylor at etlaw.co.uk>>
Cc: rt4-whois at icann.org<mailto:rt4-whois at icann.org>

Hi Emily,
I agree with your amendment regarding policy in the public interest rather than a particular set of stakeholders.
The questions you have outlined should spark a useful and necessary discussion at our meeting.
Kind regards,
Lynn

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: [Rt4-whois] Scope of Work
From: Emily Taylor <emily.taylor at etlaw.co.uk<mailto:emily.taylor at etlaw.co.uk>>
Date: Sun, January 02, 2011 12:43 pm
To: RT4 WHOIS <rt4-whois at icann.org<mailto:rt4-whois at icann.org>>

Hi all

I'm belatedly replying to Kathy's thread, and her updates on the Scope document following the Cartagena meeting.  Bearing in mind that we should be aiming to communicate our scope of work to both ICANN insiders and those not so familiar with the context of these review teams, I have amended the draft scope to add in context from the AoC, including quoting the fact that the team is constituted under the AoC, the relevant paragraph (9.3.1) and other overarching principles contained within the AoC relating to ICANN's obligations to make policy in the public interest and "not just in the interests of a particular set of stakeholders" (para 4).

One of the questions that I have in approaching our work, which I hope we will discuss in London, is to what extent should we be looking at the policy process which has led to the current WHOIS policy - because it seems to me that these overarching principles about public interest vs interests of particular stakeholders is in part answered by a look at (1) where does responsibility for Whois policy formation sit within the ICANN organisation (2) how do the relevant strands (gNSO, GAC, SSAC) that we see referenced in the background materials provided by staff fit together, and what role does the board play and (3) with regard to WHOIS policy, what mechanisms/processes are in place to ensure that the end result is made in the public interest?

Please take a look at the draft Scope.  I tried to save the changes, and I think they are there, but the screen went a bit funny, so for completeness, here is a copy of the complete scope as amended by me today (see below).

Best regards

Emily

---------------------

The WHOIS Review Team (WRT) has been constituted under the Affirmation of Commitments by the United States Department of Commerce and the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers dated 30 September 2009 (AoC).
Under paragraph 9.3.1 of the AoC, ICANN commits to organising "a review of WHOIS policy and its implementation to assess the extent to which WHOIS policy is effective and its implementation meets the legitimate needs of law enforcement and promotes consumer trust."
Accordingly, the Scope of the Whois Review Team is to assess the extent to which existing WHOIS policy and its implementation:

 *   is effective,
 *   meets the legitimate needs of law enforcement, and
 *   promotes consumer trust.
The WRT will identify and document ICANN’s existing WHOIS policy.
The WRT will identify and document ICANN's implementation of its Whois Policy.
It will define and identify law enforcement, and the term "legitimate needs of law enforcement."
It will define consumer trust and analyse what factors promote consumer trust in the context of the Whois.
It will identify the areas, if any, in which the interests above may be in conflict with each other.
It will assess applicable laws and analyze issues possibly including:
      -  contractual obligations vs. national law obligations
      -  differing global laws and ICANN obligations
It will review the extent to which ICANN’s existing WHOIS policy and its implementation are effective in meeting the legitimate needs of law enforcement and promotes consumer trust.
This assessment will include an evidence-based approach, and seek to identify good practice in other areas of the domain space (as a benchmarking tool).
The assessment will keep in mind overarching principles set out in the AoC in relation to ICANN's policy, ie that "decisions made related to the global technical coordination of the DNS are made in the public interest and are accountable and transparent" (paragraph 3(a)) "promote competition, consumer trust, and consumer choice in the DNS marketplace" (paragraph 3(c)), and that the outcomes of ICANN's private coordinating process should "reflect the public interest...and not just the interests of a particular set of stakeholders" (paragraph 4).  These principles set the context for the reviews (of which the WRT is one) performed under the AoC.
The WRT will undertake an analysis and determination of ICANN's performance against the AOC requirement 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, and what impact such requirement have on the legitimate needs of law enforcement and promoting consumer trust.
[cid:image001.jpg at 01CBAC00.5B859650]
76 Temple Road, Oxford OX4 2EZ UK
telephone: 01865 582 811   mobile: 07540 049 322
emily.taylor at etlaw.co.uk<mailto:emily.taylor at etlaw.co.uk> www.etlaw.co.uk<http://www.etlaw.co.uk>

________________________________
_______________________________________________
Rt4-whois mailing list
Rt4-whois at icann.org<mailto:Rt4-whois at icann.org>
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/rt4-whois
________________________________
_______________________________________________
Rt4-whois mailing list
Rt4-whois at icann.org<mailto:Rt4-whois at icann.org>
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/rt4-whois
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/rt4-whois/attachments/20110104/e73e8a6f/attachment.html 
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 507 bytes
Desc: image001.jpg
Url : http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/rt4-whois/attachments/20110104/e73e8a6f/image001.jpg 