[Rt4-whois] Adopting Specification 4 of the AGB

Mon Nov 21 19:18:42 UTC 2011

James - I'd be happy to contribute to this discussion.

All -

There are multiple ways to change the Registrar Accreditation Agreement
(RAA) and the various Registry agreements (see current list at <
http://www.icann.org/en/registries/agreements.htm>).

The RAA can be changed through the GNSO's policy development process (PDP)
and through contract-based options. (See attached Policy Staff paper I sent
a few weeks ago that details these processes; different issues and
processes yield different results -- e.g. immediate mandatory change,
change upon contract renewal, etc.).  RAA changes are posted for public
comment and approved by the Board.

The existing gTLD Registries are governed by the individual Registry or
Sponsorship Agreements (linked above).  Staff works with the individual
gTLD Registry to review and change the provisions of their Registry or
Sponsorship Agreement. Changes are posted for public comment and ultimately
approved by the Board.  There also is precedent for a PDP aimed at changes
to existing registry contracts (see <
http://gnso.icann.org/issues/gtld-policies/>), but this is the exception.
 In addition, a Registry may file an RSEP application to add a new service
(and change its contract) (information on this is posted at <
http://www.icann.org/en/registries/rsep/>).  Finally, as you've discussed,
the Applicant Guidebook contains obligations that will be incorporated in
new gTLD registry agreements.

Please let me know if you need more information.

Regards,
Denise

On Thursday, November 17, 2011, James M. Bladel <jbladel at godaddy.com> wrote:
> I don't think I'm covering this topic adequately.  Denise, perhaps you
could weigh in on Bill's questions?
>
> J.
>
> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: Re: [Rt4-whois] Adopting Specification 4 of the AGB
> From: "Smith, Bill" <bill.smith at paypal-inc.com>
> Date: Thu, November 17, 2011 2:56 pm
> To: "James M. Bladel" <jbladel at godaddy.com>
> Cc: Susan Kawaguchi <susank at fb.com>, "rt4-whois at icann.org"
> <rt4-whois at icann.org>
>
> James,
>
> Thanks for the quick reply.
>
> Sorry to be slow, but I still don't see where "contract modification"
requires a PDP (and Issues Report, etc.). The section you referenced
describes how new specifications and policies are developed, not how
contracts are amended.
>
> As best I can tell, it's up to the ICANN Board to make the determination
on contract language.
>
> Bill
>
> On Nov 17, 2011, at 12:42 PM, James M. Bladel wrote:
>
> Bill:
>
> This is described in Section 4 of the RAA. Here's a quick link:
http://www.icann.org/en/registrars/ra-agreement-21may09-en.htm#4
>
>
> J.
>
> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: Re: [Rt4-whois] Adopting Specification 4 of the AGB
> From: "Smith, Bill" <bill.smith at paypal-inc.com><
http://bill.smith@paypal-inc.com/>&gt;
> Date: Thu, November 17, 2011 2:38 pm
> To: "James M. Bladel" <jbladel at godaddy.com><mailto:jbladel at godaddy.com>>
> Cc: Susan Kawaguchi <susank at fb.com><mailto:susank at fb.com>>, "
rt4-whois at icann.org<mailto:rt4-whois at icann.org>"
> <rt4-whois at icann.org><mailto:rt4-whois at icann.org>>
>
> James,
>
> I agree on the need for consensus re our recommendations.
>
> Could you point me to the language that says the only way to modify a
Contracted Party contract is through the PDP. I haven't been able to locate
that in the Bylaws or the GNSO PDP. I'm sure it's somewhere but I can't
find the policy or process document that states this.
>
> Bill
>
> On Nov 17, 2011, at 10:46 AM, James M. Bladel wrote:
>
> Hi folks:
>
> Reading this thread (and reflecting on the work Susan and I are doing
w.r.t. Proxy services), I am reminded of the limited nature of this Review
Team in making its recommendations. Like my favorite game show "Jeopardy,"
it's not enough to have the correct answer. The format of the response (in
our case, recommendation) is equally important.
>
> Bearing this in mind, I submit that recommendations should include the
following elements:
> (1) Target (To whom are we directing the recommendation?)
> (2) Mechanism (By what means will the recommended action be implemented?)
> (3) Timeframe (What is the deadline for action? Note that in ICANN as
well as the general world, if something is left open-ended, it will never
be completed.)
> (4) Communication, Measurement & Follow-up (Was implementation complete?
Did it work? What can the next WHOIS RT take away from it?)
>
> Note that if we are describing actions that would create new obligations
for Contracted Parties (Registries & Registrars), we must reference the
GNSO Policy Development Process (PDP, Annex A in the ICANN Bylaws) as part
of our recommendation, the first step of which is requesting an Issues
Report. This is the only way to create new obligations for contracted
parties.
>
> So, instead of:
> "Registrars should fix Problem X."
>
> A proper recommendation might look like:
> "No later than Jul 2012, the ICANN Board should request a PDP Issues
Report to examine the potential actions Registrars can take to address
Problem X."
>
> Also want to re-iterate that divided recommendations will most likely die
on the table when presented to the Board. To ensure that each and every
recommendation becomes reality, we must be unanimous in our presentation.
If we aren't there yet with some of our recs, then we have to walk them
back together until we can find middle ground (similar to what Susan and I
are doing w.r.t. Proxy).
>
> Thanks--
>
> J.
>
> Subject: Re: [Rt4-whois] FW: Adopting Specification 4 of the AGB
> From: Susan Kawaguchi <susank at fb.com><mailto:susank at fb.com>><mailto:
susank at fb.com><http://susank@fb.com/>>&gt;
> Date: Thu, November 17, 2011 12:00 pm
> To: Kathy Kleiman <kathy at kathykleiman.com><mailto:kathy at kathykleiman.com
>><mailto:kathy at kathykleiman.com><http://kathy@kathykleiman.com/>>&gt;,
> "rt4-whois at icann.org<mailto:rt4-whois at icann.org><mailto:
rt4-whois at icann.org><http://rt4-whois@icann.org/>&gt;" <rt4-whois at icann.org
><mailto:rt4-whois at icann.org>><mailto:rt4-whois at icann.org><
http://rt4-whois@icann.org/>>&gt;
>
> Hi Kathy,
>
> Please see my comments below.
> From: Kathy Kleiman [mailto:kathy at kathykleiman.com]
> Sent: Thursday, November 17, 2011 6:56 AM
> To: rt4-whois at icann.org<mailto:rt4-whois at icann.org><mailto:
rt4-whois at icann.org><http://rt4-whois@icann.org/>&gt;; Susan Kawaguchi
> Subject: Re: [Rt4-whois] FW: Adopting Specification 4 of the AGB
>
> Dear Susan,
> I understand your desire to see a Thick Whois Model imposed across the
board. Watching the users on the video we watched in MDR struggle with the
searches was painful. Knowing that you struggle with this issue every day
is even worse.
>
> However, adopting the Applicant Guidebook provisions for New Registries I
don't see as being the right answer. In part, because it raises as many
questions as it answers, and it may pose instability to the Net. If your
assertion is true then we obviously have much bigger issues to deal with
but I have followed the new gTld process from the very beginning, through
all the versions and discussions of the AGB, had internal technical people
evaluate the processes ICANN is advocating and have never heard a concern
that Specification 4 would cause instability to the internet.
>
> To expand: As we have discussed, in the early days, the functions of
Registry and Registrar were not separate and Network Solutions both managed
the database for .COM, .ORG and NET, and also registered domain names into
it.
>
> In 1999, I believe, ICANN introduced the first bit of competition, 4
registrars to register domain names into the new gTLDs. As more competition
in the registrar business came in (considered a hallmark of ICANN's work to
introduce competition into the domain name space), the registrars began
banging on Network Solutions, then owned by SAIC, then purchased by
Verisign, to stop their compete ownership and control of the Whois
information. It was an element of the competitive nature of the new domain
name space to break up the information so one registry would not own and
control it all. Completely understand the history but the need to create
competition within the registrar space is no longer an issue. What we are
facing now is a real need for the internet consumer to be able to easily
look up a domain name registration. Whether that is converting the .com and
.net registries to a Thick Whois model or ICANN creating a centralized
WHOIS data base by collecting all the WHOIS information from each registrar
I could advocate for either option. (I think Lutz is drafting a proposal
for this option) If the team does not address this issue, in my mind, we
have not done our job. It is crucial that the information for a domain name
is available and accurate (privacy and proxy registrations aside as that is
still viable WHOIS information).
>
> The key concern was, of course, .COM. And these issues, and the real
concern of this largest of the registry database, now numbering almost 100
million names (Oct 2011), would control the customer data and be able to
bypass the new registrars and compete directly for the registration
business, as well as creating a series of additional business functions.
It's an enormous set of competitive data (as we heard from the Registrars
in the Registry/Registrar meeting in Singapore with us) Registrars remain
very committed to this model, and for legitimate reasons. This is a
redherring. There are many ways that they all collect competitive data and
having one source that is accurate, available and searchable would benefit
the internet consumers in general and not the smaller segment of just
registrars or registries .
>
> Further, the danger of converting a 100 million database is enormous.
When the Public Interest Registry took over the .ORG contract (after
competitive applications), among the first things it had to do was convert
the ORG registrations to thick ones. There were only a few million
registrations at the time and it was still an enormous and delicate task.
It was a huge moment. I understand for a small company transitioning
databases can be harrowing but Verisign is a well funded, large
organization and well equipped to scope out the process before hand and put
all the necessary safeguards in place. Truly 100 million records is not
that significant any more when you look at the large internet companies and
how many users or accounts that are created every day.
>
> Such a change, now to the enormous .COM database, is not an easy one to
think about. Every major company in the world has a .COM registration.
These websites are 24*7 operations. The risk to the Security & Stability of
the Net would be one to study closely and carefully. The difficulties, not
to mention risks and liabilities, would be enormous. The Thin Whois
database could continue to exist to address any identified issues with
security and stability of the internet. I am fine with the requirement to
run both Thick and Thin. The ICANN centralized database proposal would
essentially do that.
>
> Is there something we can do, within the confines of our mandate and our
fact-based research and assessment. Yes, I really think there are.
>
> We have some key things we have agreed to:
> 1) Findability - thin registration data should be findable. That's a
technical issue (broken links) and an educational issue (what's a thin
Whois, or better yet, how to I find .COM data). On education, there is much
we can do to educate and help Law Enforcement and Fraud Investigators
(public and private) to find the data we need. Let's include some
recommendations on these. I have never had an issue (to date) with finding
Thin registration data. Verisign data is always available and probably
always accurate. But it is not enough data. We need the THICK WHOIS data to
protect the internet consumer.
> 2) Access & Accuracy - as we have already been discussing and which are
key.
>
> One thing we could do (and it will make us few friends) is to throw this
kettle of fish into the hands of the registries and registrars on a
timeframe, e.g., six months or one year, for their solutions and
recommendations. They, together with the Community which must review and
accept their solutions, must move quickly. Without specific recommendations
and ( I agree with you) a specific time frame I do not have any faith in
solving this issue.
> I do agree that we should not get to deep into the details but if we do
not provide clear findings and actionable recommendations I fear we will be
arguing about this for the next decade.
>
>
> But I don't think we can mandate a specific answer.
> Best,
> Kathy
>
>
>
>
>
> :
> Just realized that I did not attach the document to this email last week.
>
> From: Susan Kawaguchi
> Sent: Tuesday, November 08, 2011 11:13 PM
> To: rt4-whois at icann.org<mailto:rt4-whois at icann.org><mailto:
rt4-whois at icann.org><http://rt4-whois@icann.org/>&gt;
> Subject: Adopting Specification 4 of the AGB
>
> Attached is a draft of recommendations for adopting Specification 4 of
the AGB for existing gTlds.
>
> At the end of the document are rough thoughts on ICANN creating a
voluntary program for registrars to be considered A list registrars. This
would recognize the responsible registars and the proactive service they
provide.
>
> I will not be on the call tonight since it is 3 am my time. Not sure
anything I would say would make any sense.
>
> Susan Kawaguchi
> Domain Name Manager
>
> Facebook Inc.
> 1601 California Avenue
> Palo Alto, CA
>
> Phone - 650 485-6064
> Cell - 650 387 3904
>
> Please note my email address has changed to skawaguchi at fb.com<mailto:
skawaguchi at fb.com><mailto:skawaguchi at fb.com><http://skawaguchi@fb.com/>&gt;
> NOTICE: This email (including any attachments) may contain information
that is private, confidential, or protected by attorney-client or other
privilege. Unless you are the intended recipient, you may not use, copy, or
retransmit the email or its contents.
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
>
> Rt4-whois mailing list
>
> Rt4-whois at icann.org<mailto:Rt4-whois at icann.org><mailto:Rt4-whois at icann.org
><http://Rt4-whois@icann.org/>&gt;
>
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/rt4-whois
>
>
>
>
> --
>
>
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> _______________________________________________
> Rt4-whois mailing list
> Rt4-whois at icann.org<mailto:Rt4-whois at icann.org><mailto:Rt4-whois at icann.org
><http://Rt4-whois@icann.org/>&gt;
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/rt4-whois
> _______________________________________________
> Rt4-whois mailing list
> Rt4-whois at icann.org<mailto:Rt4-whois at icann.org><mailto:Rt4-whois at icann.org
><http://Rt4-whois@icann.org/>&gt;
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/rt4-whois
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/rt4-whois/attachments/20111121/dd5ac825/attachment.html 
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Final RAA Discussion Paper 13-10-11v3 (1).pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 1661831 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/rt4-whois/attachments/20111121/dd5ac825/FinalRAADiscussionPaper13-10-11v31.pdf 