[Rt4-whois] WHOIS Review Team - Briefing
emily at emilytaylor.eu
Mon Jan 23 15:27:45 UTC 2012
Thanks for initiating that action. Look forward to receiving the results
and to our continuing dialogue and engagement with the Board.
On 23 January 2012 11:25, Steve Crocker <steve at shinkuro.com> wrote:
> I've initiated internal action to determine how to deal with each of the
> twenty recommendations. I wasn't directly involved in the comparable
> process for the ATRT recommendations, so I've reached out to the folks who
> were. We should have a first cut reasonably quickly.
> Having watched the whois debates for most of the ten years I've been
> associated with ICANN, it's always seemed to me that the first step to
> untangling the logjam is to lay out clearly the multiple purposes various
> factions perceive WHOIS is supposed to serve and to organize the dialog
> along multiple dimensions, not just the single dimension of more versus
> less accuracy. If I recall correctly, when Network Solutions was the
> combined registry and registrar, they required strong proof of identity,
> e.g. drivers license, before registering a domain name. The accuracy was
> much higher, but so was the cost. I'm not expressing a preference, but I
> do think the dynamics need to be laid open for a fuller discussion.
> On Jan 23, 2012, at 6:12 AM, Emily Taylor wrote:
> Dear Steve
> Thank you for your follow up.
> As you say, it's difficult to know how to strike the appropriate balance
> between the here and now, and the history. We were acutely aware that an
> entire report could have been done which focused on how we got to where we
> are now. In the end, we felt that as our scope was to look at the extent
> to which the current policy and implementation were effective, that we
> should allude to the history to the extent necessary, but not make it our
> primary focus. We were fortunate to have members of the WHOIS Review Team
> who have lived the history, even if it's only for the past decade or so
> (some longer). I'm sure I speak for the rest of the Review Team in saying,
> Steve, that we would value your take on the history of the WHOIS, as one of
> the few who have been involved in the Internet's development for the full
> 40 years. Maybe we could take some time during our call with the Board to
> hear from you on this point.
> Thank you for confirming that you will organise a response on the
> mechanics of the recommendations. This will be important practical
> information which will help in the drafting of the final report. Thanks
> also for saying that you would be open to a more focused session on lessons
> learned from the AoC Review processes - perhaps Prague might be the slot
> for this.
> In the meantime, thanks again for your comments and this interaction. All
> on the Review Team are looking forward to discussing our draft report - in
> form and substance - with you and your Board colleagues.
> Kind regards
> On 22 January 2012 19:19, Steve Crocker <steve at shinkuro.com> wrote:
> On Jan 22, 2012, at 1:52 PM, Emily Taylor wrote:
> Dear Steve
> Thank you for your recent mail, and for your detailed comments on the
> draft report of the WHOIS Review Team.
> I will forward your substantive comments on the draft report for
> publication, and have cc'd the Review Team so that they have an early view
> of them. Your input will receive careful consideration along with the other
> public comments. I will not respond to those substantive comments here,
> but look forward to discussing them with you as part of our future
> engagement with the Board. You will note that the Review Team has
> specifically asked for feedback on who should be tasked with the
> recommendations, timeframes and priorities.
> Two points:
> 1. I did not consider my comments to be *substantive* comments in the
> sense of agreeing or disagreeing with the facts or conclusions, though I
> understand each of us may draw these lines in different places. Rather, I
> was commenting on the quality, i.e. clarity, completeness, etc., of the
> report. I have some thoughts on the substance of the report too, but I
> didn't think it was appropriate for me to insert them into the conversation
> at this point.
> 2. I apologize for not clearly understanding you were requesting feedback
> on whom should be tasked with the recommendations, timeframes and
> priorities. That will take a bit of work. I'll get that organized.
> I will respond here to the points that you raise about process. You are
> right to focus on it, as it seems to me that the Board has not yet absorbed
> the Affirmation of Commitments Reviews into its psyche or planning
> I'm not sure what you mean by this. We take the AoC reviews *very*
> I share your view that it is appropriate to take stock at this stage.
> You raise concerns about the quality of the AoC Reviews
> Apologies if there was a lack of clarity of my part. My concern about the
> quality of reports is not specific to AoC Reviews. I've been concerned
> about this for much longer. We get reports from many different groups, and
> I've developed my concern about quality after seeing quite few reports that
> were unclear, incomplete or otherwise not as good as we should expect.
> , and seem to suggest that the Board has a role to play in quality
> control. I respectfully disagree. From my perspective, the Affirmation of
> Commitments Reviews provide an important accountability mechanism for ICANN
> as an organisation, community and Board. The fact that they are scheduled
> to be repeated at regular intervals strengthens their role in evaluating
> ICANN's performance over time in key areas. In that context, the Board has
> a role (through the CEO) as co-selector of the Review Team members,
> providing input into the Reviews as an interested stakeholder, and
> overseeing the implementation of the recommendations.
> It is vital for the credibility of the Affirmation of Commitments Reviews
> that the Board is not involved in the final editing of the report beyond
> providing input with other stakeholders, in an open and transparent manner.
> These are independent reviews, conducted on behalf of the signatories of
> the Affirmation of Commitments in the public interest. They are not Board
> outputs. If the Board decides that the quality of the individuals on a
> Review Team is sub-standard (as your reply seems to indicate is your view),
> or disagrees with the findings or recommendations, or finds the quality of
> the report itself to be poor, these are issues for the Board to raise in
> the appropriate manner. In my view, the most effective way of doing so
> would have been for the Board to engage with the Review Team throughout the
> process, as others within the ICANN community have done.
> If I have misunderstood your intent in this regard, please let me know.
> We're in agreement that the Board should not be involved in editing. We
> absolutely don't want to apply any pressure with respect to the content or
> judgment embodied in the report. Equally, we don't have the time or
> resources to do detailed editing or provide detailed feedback with respect
> to the quality of reports. But somehow there needs to be some feedback and
> review of the quality of reports.
> With respect to raising these issues during the process, until the draft
> report was available, I'm not sure how we could have commented on the
> quality of the report.
> With these points in mind, a possible approach might be for the Board to
> arrange orientation/training /brainstorming sessions to identify the role
> of the Board with respect to the Reviews, and appropriate mechanisms for
> the Board to participate in and respond to them. The former chairs of
> Review Teams could be involved, as could the NTIA (as the other signatory
> of the AoC) or the GAC (as the NTIA's proxy).
> I'll be happy to facilitate this.
> As for selection of the Review Team members, any issues you have with the
> quality of the individuals or distribution of skill-sets you should raise
> with your CEO and the Chair of the GAC, who selected us. I would say,
> having had the privilege to lead the WHOIS Review Team over the past year,
> that the individuals are of the highest competence, and showed a readiness
> both to argue their own corner, and to subsume personal or professional
> interests to the public interest in completing our task. As volunteers,
> they also gave generously of their time in an effort to create a timely and
> quality output. In this regard, the early endorsement of our draft report
> by both the FTC and Larry Strickling are welcome.
> I take no issue with the volunteers who participated on the team.
> You particularly asked about our technical expertise. We were fortunate
> to have members of the Review Team who understood the technical issues, the
> underlying protocol, and the history of the WHOIS. We also benefited from
> regular interaction with SSAC, in particular Patrik Fältström and Jim
> Galvin. No doubt, if our draft report contains technical errors, they will
> continue to guide us with the same patience that they have shown to date.
> I think you're referring to my comment that one part of the report seemed
> light on the history of whois, which caused me to look at the list of
> people on the team and realize how few were technical to note the absence
> of people either on the team or referred to in the report who had lived
> through the more than forty year development of the whois service.
> I don't think this is of the greatest importance since we can look at how
> whois operates today and work from where we are, but I would have hoped
> that people new to the whois debates would be able to turn to this report
> to get a good perspective based on the history and development of issues
> related to whois.
> Finally, on behalf of the WHOIS Review Team I am grateful for your input,
> and look forward to exploring all these issues with you and the Board on
> our upcoming call and face to face meeting.
> 76 Temple Road, Oxford OX4 2EZ UK
> t: +44 (0)1865 582 811 • m: +44 (0)7540 049 322
> emily at emilytaylor.eu
> Emily Taylor Consultancy Limited is a company registered in England and
> Wales No. 7630471. VAT No. 114487713.
76 Temple Road, Oxford OX4 2EZ UK
t: +44 (0)1865 582 811 • m: +44 (0)7540 049 322
emily at emilytaylor.eu
Emily Taylor Consultancy Limited is a company registered in England and
Wales No. 7630471. VAT No. 114487713.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Rt4-whois