[Rt4-whois] Today's (tonight's) conference call with ICANN Staff [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED]

Thu Feb 23 09:38:27 UTC 2012

Hi Peter

Unfortunately, the call was not recorded, but I asked Alice to keep a full
note, and she will circulate that as soon as possible.  We had a very good
discussion on the draft recommendations.

Kind regards

Emily

On 23 February 2012 05:04, Nettlefold, Peter
<Peter.Nettlefold at dbcde.gov.au>wrote:

> Hi all,****
>
> ** **
>
> I apologise that I wasn’t able to join the call. Will a recording or
> transcript of the call be made available?****
>
> ** **
>
> Cheers,****
>
> ** **
>
> Peter****
>
> ** **
>
> *From:* rt4-whois-bounces at icann.org [mailto:rt4-whois-bounces at icann.org] *On
> Behalf Of *Denise Michel
> *Sent:* Thursday, 23 February 2012 6:22 AM
> *To:* rt4-whois at icann.org
> *Subject:* [Rt4-whois] Today's (tonight's) conference call with ICANN
> Staff****
>
> ** **
>
> Dear Team members,
>
> Thank you, again, for participating in this conference call with ICANN
> Staff.
>
> Below, and attached, is a summary of the Team's recommendations to help
> facilitate our discussion.   ****
>
>
> Regards,
> Denise
>
> Denise Michel
> ICANN
> Advisor to the President & CEO
> denise.michel at icann.org
> +1.408.429.3072 mobile
> +1.310.578.8632 direct****
>
> ** **
>
> *WHOIS Policy Review Team Draft Report Recommendations*****
>
> *Single WHOIS Policy*****
>
> 1) ICANN's WHOIS policy is poorly defined and decentralized; Team
> recommends Board oversee creation and publication of a single WHOIS policy
> document; include gTLD WHOIS policy in Registry & Registrar contracts, GNSO
> consensus policies & procedures.****
>
> *Policy Review – WHOIS Data Reminder Policy (WDRP)*****
>
> 2) Board should ensure that Compliance develops metrics to track impact of
> annual data reminder notices to registrants, and that these metrics be used
> to develop and publish performance targets to improve data accuracy over
> time (if not feasible, develop & implement an alternative policy). ****
>
> *Strategic Priority*****
>
> 3) ICANN should make WHOIS a strategic priority, allocate sufficient
> resources to ensure Compliance is fully resourced to take a proactive
> regulatory role, encourage a culture of compliance; Board should ensure a
> senior member of the executive team is responsible for overseeing WHOIS
> compliance.****
>
> *Outreach*****
>
> 4) ICANN should ensure that WHOIS policy issues are accompanied by
> cross-community outreach, including outreach to interested communities
> outside of ICANN.****
>
> *Data Accuracy*****
>
> 5) ICANN should take appropriate measures to reduce the number of
> unreachable WHOIS registrations (as defined by the 2010 NORC Data Accuracy
> Study) by 50% within 12 months and by 50% again over the following 12
> months.****
>
> 6) ICANN shall publish annually an accuracy report on measured reduction
> in “unreachable WHOIS registrations.”****
>
> 7) ICANN should publish status reports (at least annually) (with figures)
> on its progress towards achieving goals set out by the Team, the first to
> be issued before next review.****
>
> 8) ICANN should ensure that there is a clear, unambiguous and enforceable
> chain of contractual agreements with Registries, Registrars, and
> Registrants to require the provision and maintenance of accurate WHOIS
> data; as part of this, ICANN should ensure that clear, enforceable and
> graduated sanctions apply to Registries, Registrars, Registrants that don’t
> comply with WHOIS policies, including de-registration and/or
> de-accreditation for serious or serial non-compliance.****
>
> 9) ICANN should ensure that requirements for accurate WHOIS data are
> widely and pro-actively communicated to current and prospective
> registrants, and should ensure that its Registrant Rights and
> Responsibilities document is pro-actively, prominently circulated to all
> new and renewing registrants. ****
>
> *Data Access – Privacy Services*****
>
> 10) ICANN should develop and manage a system of clear, consistent and
> enforceable requirements for all privacy services consistent with national
> laws, balancing between stakeholders with competing but legitimate
> interests, including, at a minimum, privacy, law enforcement and industry
> around LE.  These should include: WHOIS entry must clearly label that this
> is a private registration; privacy services must provide full contact
> details as required that are available and responsive (see above);
> standardized relay and reveal processes and timeframes; rules for the
> appropriate level of publicly available information on the Registrant;
> maintenance of a dedicated abuse point of contact for the privacy service
> provider; privacy service provider shall conduct periodic due diligence
> checks.****
>
> 11) ICANN should develop a graduated and enforceable series of penalties
> for privacy service providers who violate the requirements, with a clear
> path to de-accreditation for repeat, serial****
>
> *Data Access - Proxy Services*****
>
> 12) ICANN should facilitate the review of existing practices by reaching
> out to proxy providers to create a discussion that sets out current
> processes followed by these providers.****
>
> 13) Registrars should be required to disclose to ICANN their relationship
> with any Affiliated Retail proxy service provider.****
>
> 14) ICANN should develop a set of voluntary best practice guidelines for
> appropriate proxy services consistent with national laws, striking a
> balance between stakeholders with competing but legitimate interests,
> including, at a minimum, privacy, law enforcement and industry around LE.
> Voluntary guidelines may include: proxy services provide full contact
> details as required; publication by the proxy service of its process for
> revealing and relaying information; standardization of reveal/relay
> processes & timeframes, consistent with national laws; maintenance of a
> dedicated abuse point of contact for the proxy service provider; due
> diligence checks on licensee contact information.****
>
> 15) ICANN should encourage and incentivize registrars to interact with the
> retail service providers that adopt the best practices.****
>
> 16) The published WHOIS Policy should include an affirmative statement
> that clarifies that a proxy means a relationship in which the Registrant is
> acting on behalf of another; the WHOIS data is that of the agent, and the
> agent alone obtains all rights and assumes all responsibility for the
> domain name and its manner of use.****
>
> *Data Access – Common Interface*****
>
> 17) To improve access to the WHOIS data of .COM & .NET gTLDs (the Thin
> Registries), ICANN should set-up a dedicated, multilingual interface
> website to provide thick WHOIS data for them. (An “Alternative for public
> comment”: to make WHOIS data more accessible for consumers, ICANN should
> set-up a dedicated, multilingual interface website to allow “unrestricted
> and public access to accurate and complete WHOIS information” to provide
> thick WHOIS data for all gTLD domain names. ****
>
> *Internationalized Domain Names*****
>
> 18) The ICANN Community should task a working group (WG) within 6 months
> of publication to finalize (i) encoding, (ii) modifications to data model,
> and (iii) internationalized services, to give global access to gather,
> store and make available internationalized registration data.  Such WG
> should report no later than one year from formation, using existing IDN
> encoding.  The WG should aim for consistency of approach across gTLDs and –
> on a voluntary basis – the ccTLD space.****
>
> 19) The final data model and services should be incorporated and reflected
> in Registrar and Registry agreements within 6 months of adoption of the
> WG’s recommendations by the ICANN Board.  If these recommendations are not
> finalized in time for the next revision of such agreements, explicit
> placeholders for this purpose should be put in place in the agreements for
> the new gTLD program at this time, and in the existing agreements when they
> come up for renewal (as is case for adoption of consensus policies).****
>
> 20) Requirements for registration data accuracy and availability in local
> languages should be finalized (following initial work by IRD-WG and similar
> efforts, especially if translation or transliteration of data is
> stipulated) along with the efforts on internationalization of registration
> data. Metrics should be defined to measure accuracy and availability of
> data in local languages and (if needed) corresponding data in ASCII, and
> compliance methods and targets should be explicitly defined accordingly.**
> **
>
>  ****
>
> ** **
>
>
> *
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> *
> NOTICE: This email message is for the sole use of the intended
> recipient(s)
> and may contain confidential and privileged information. Any unauthorized
> review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the
> intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply email and destroy
> all
> copies of the original message.
>
> This message has been content scanned by the Axway MailGate.
> MailGate uses policy enforcement to scan for known viruses, spam,
> undesirable content and malicious code. For more information on Axway
> products please visit www.axway.com.
>
> *
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> *
>
> _______________________________________________
> Rt4-whois mailing list
> Rt4-whois at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/rt4-whois
>
>

-- 

*
*

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/20120223/329e2cba/attachment.html 