[Rt4-whois] Happy New Year and a question

[Emily Taylor]

Hi John

Thank you for your message, and for reading the WHOIS Review Team's draft
report - by my calculations that makes you the second person I've spoken to
who's actually read it!

You are correct in your guess that I chaired the Team.  I looked again at
our dramatis personae and see that it does look like I'm claiming to be
Chair of the ccNSO, which I'm not.  We'll make sure that's a bit clearer in
the final version.

Thanks for your praise for the draft report.  It's nice to get any
feedback, and kind words are always welcome. It was a true team effort, and
fortunately many people on the team  - as well as being vocal about their
views (!) - were also willing to roll their sleeves up and get stuck in to
the writing.

In answer to your direct question: yes. Validation of data is something we
considered carefully.  You are right in saying that we received a number of
inputs requesting validation of data.  This was something that the
Compliance Team within ICANN told us they would like to see.  And yes, we
did deliberately not require that.

I can only give you my personal understanding of why we didn't require
validation on the way in.  Partly, I don't think there would have been
consensus within the Team for such a recommendation - but I may be wrong.
 One of the strengths of the Review is that despite being a
cross-constituency team we managed to agree on all the recommendations.
 This will be vital going forward, as the recommendations will need
approval by the ICANN Board and then implementation by many parties before
they become a reality.

Another reason is that validation only works going forward.  There is a
huge legacy problem (100m .coms alone, not counting .org, .net etc).  The
real harm we identified was from existing records that are so bad that no
one can get hold of the registrant at all.  We decided to set a tough
target to reduce these 'unreachables' by half in a single year, and half
again the following year.

Don't get me wrong, personally I think it would be great if records going
in were all validated, and our recommendation does not preclude data
validation.  In any event, rather than providing solutions, our job is to
set expectations.  I hope that our draft report makes it clear that the
expectation of those who rely on WHOIS is for data accuracy to improve.

An interesting development which has happened since our draft was published
is the ongoing renegotiation of the Registrar Accreditation Agreement.
 That is a closed door process, and I don't know the details. Reading news
reports and general online chatter, it appears that data validation may be
a requirement in the new RAA. If so, that would be great for the future.
 What it won't do, as stated above, is anything about the existing records
- which are the main problem currently.

However, the reason for publishing our draft report is to get feedback.
 Garlands are lovely, of course, but we also need to hear where our draft
has not lived up to expectations.   I hope that you will go on to do your
blog piece, and submit some comments.

I have cc'd the team, so that everyone is aware of this exchange, and can
think about the comments you've made.

[All - for any of you who don't know John Carr, he is an expert in online
child protection, and has worked tirelessly in the UK and internationally
on behalf of a coalition of children's charities to raise awareness of the
harms caused by online images of child abuse.  John's perspective is
therefore that of a user of WHOIS. ]

Others within the Team may wish to make comments on what you've asked, and
may disagree with my version of events.  I know from experience they will
not hold back if they have any input to make!

Thank you for reading the report, for your praise, and your constructive
criticism, which are both welcome.

Best wishes for 2012, and I hope we see each other again soon.


Emily




On 3 February 2012 09:41, John Carr <john.carr49 at btinternet.com> wrote:

> Hi Emily,****
>
> ** **
>
> Hope all goes well with you and yours.****
>
> ** **
>
> I got your message via Sharon and I will make a submission to the
> consultation on the WHOIS Review.****
>
> ** **
>
> I must say I loved reading the document – it was surgical and devastating
> – no wonder they are looking for a new CEO.  It was also beautifully
> written. A model of plain English which was easy to understand. I am going
> to do a blog about it. ****
>
> ** **
>
> The blog will be garlanded with flowers and praise but I cannot for the
> life of me understand why you did not come straight out and say the data
> should, correction, must, be validated on the way in. Several important
> voices also urged that but you make no specific reference to those voices
> in the final recommendations. So that will be a criticism I make and it
> will also form the basis of the submission I referred to above.****
>
> ** **
>
> Given the precision and clarity of the report’s language in every other
> respect I find it hard to believe that the distinct lack of it on that
> point was an oversight or the product of a failure to grasp or identify the
> point. You could have said, for example,****
>
> ** **
>
> “Several representations have been made urging that etc………The Review Team
> is not unsympathetic to this idea, and as part of an ongoing series of
> measures to establish and maintain a higher level of data accuracy it could
> play a key part, but we would like to canvass a wider range of views before
> finalising our thinking.”****
>
> ** **
>
> In very many countries around the world it would be a trifling matter to
> validate the data on the way in and/or to reconfirm it periodically
> subsequently. It can be done in real time, very fast and very cheaply. In
> others it would be more difficult and more expensive, but not impossible,
> and even if it introduced a short delay while papers were checked or taken
> to e.g. a Post Office to be scrutinised, the gains in accuracy and
> therefore the gains in consumer confidence, law enforcement and
> Governmental confidence would be substantial. It is hard to imagine that a
> new Amazon or PayPal would be stillborn because it might have taken as long
> as 72 hours to get up and running with a new web site name. Would there be
> a drift away from some domains in some countries to others where it was
> possible to do everything immediately online? Compared to the net gain is
> that a good enough reason for not proceeding?****
>
> ** **
>
> Anyway, my question is: am I right in thinking you chaired and led the
> Review Team? I saw your name listed with “Chairman” next to it but it then
> added that ccNSO reference so I wondered if…… ****
>
> ** **
>
> Regards****
>
> ** **
>
> John****
>
> ** **
>
> Check out my blog: http://johnc1912.wordpress.com ****
>
> Follow me on Twitter: @johnc1912  ****
>
> ** **
>



-- 




*
*

76 Temple Road, Oxford OX4 2EZ UK
t: +44 (0)1865 582 811 • m: +44 (0)7540 049 322
emily at emilytaylor.eu

*www.etlaw.co.uk*

Emily Taylor Consultancy Limited is a company registered in England and
Wales No. 7630471. VAT No. 114487713.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/rt4-whois/attachments/20120203/71855eb1/attachment.html