[Rt4-whois] GAC endorses WHOIS RT recommendations [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED]

[Nettlefold, Peter]

Hi Omar and all,

Following from Omar’s email on part 5 of the GAC advice, I thought it may be worth copying other relevant parts from the GAC’s Prague communique, so that all the text is in one place (sorry for not doing this earlier, but I kept having formatting problems with cutting and pasting from the PDF).

I hope this makes things a bit easier.

Cheers,

Peter


2. ICANN’s role as an industry self-regulatory organisation

a. The GAC understands that ICANN’s role includes:
i. Overseeing the global DNS industry, and accrediting organisations to participate in that industry
ii. Use of contracts to establish relationships with specific industry participants.
iii. Overseeing and enforcing compliance with those contracts
b. The GAC welcomes the briefing on ICANN’s role in overseeing the global DNS industry, and looks forward to further targeted discussions on this issue

The GAC requests a written briefing from the Board that explains:


·       The broad principles and particular mechanisms used by ICANN when overseeing the global DNS industry, including details of each of the self-regulatory mechanisms it has developed for this role (including contracts, code of conduct, and so on)

·       Why ICANN has chosen to accredit and contract with some industry participants directly (for example, registries and registrars), and not others (for example, resellers)?

·       How ICANN would resolve a situation where a reseller was identified as breaching an ICANN policy or contractual obligation? How would a breach involving a privacy/proxy provider be handled? It would be useful for these hypothetical circumstances to reflect any documented procedures, contractual obligations, and escalation measures.

3. ICANN’s role in the development of contracts

a. The GAC welcomes the publication by ICANN of the draft new Registrar Accreditation Agreement (RAA). It appears that this draft contains many changes from the current RAA, and has clearly been informed by a number of LEA/GAC recommendations.
b. Several questions relating to privacy and data protection issues and the accountability of resellers remain outstanding. As discussed in the public meeting with the Board, the GAC stands ready to assist in these discussions. The GAC encourages the Board to provide written questions on any privacy and data retention matters to the GAC to facilitate an early response.
c. The GAC emphasises the need for all ICANN contracts to be clear, unambiguous and enforceable, and welcomes ICANN’s efforts to enhance its compliance and termination tools as a part of the RAA negotiation process. The timeliness of this work is increasingly important.

The GAC advises the Board


·       that this work should be finalised as a matter of priority, and

·       that all the necessary amendments and procedures should be in place in advance of the delegation of any new gTLDs.

The GAC reiterates its interest and availability to assist with the resolution of these issues.

4. ICANN’s contract oversight and compliance role

a. At the San Jose meeting, the GAC had asked the Board for an update on the status of the LEA/GAC recommendations that relate to due diligence by ICANN, and would appreciate a response.
b. The importance of an effective industry oversight and compliance function will become more important with the upcoming introduction of new gTLDs, and an increase in the number of contracts that ICANN will need to oversee. With the accompanying likelihood of new entrants to the industry, it will be important for ICANN to ensure that its compliance policies and processes are clear, publicly known and consistently enforced.
c. The GAC has provided the Board with examples of organisations that have separated their regulatory and operational responsibilities (see Annex 1). As previously advised at the San Jose meeting, the GAC considers that a principles-based approach to structuring ICANN’s compliance activities would support a robust and consistent oversight and compliance function.

The GAC advises the Board


·       to finalise improvements to its compliance and industry oversight functions before any new gTLDs are launched.



From: Omar Kaminski [mailto:omar at kaminski.adv.br]
Sent: Tuesday, 3 July 2012 11:25 AM
To: Nettlefold, Peter
Cc: rt4-whois at icann.org
Subject: Re: [Rt4-whois] GAC endorses WHOIS RT recommendations [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED]

Glad to know, thanks for the update, Peter!

5. WHOIS Review Team

a. The GAC welcomes the final report of the WHOIS Review Team, and notes that there are a number of common themes identified by the WHOIS Review Team’s recommendations, the LEA/GAC recommendations, and the
GAC’s advice relating to ICANN’s industry oversight and compliance function.

b. The GAC endorses the recommendations of the WHOIS Review Team, and will closely monitor the Board’s response and subsequent implementation activities.

The GAC advises the Board

 *   to take account of the WHOIS Review Team’s recommendations as part of the current RAA amendment process.
Omar


2012/7/2 Nettlefold, Peter <Peter.Nettlefold at dbcde.gov.au<mailto:Peter.Nettlefold at dbcde.gov.au>>
Hello all,
Following the Prague meeting, I just wanted to let you know that the GAC has endorsed the WHOIS RT recommendations, and has also provided advice on related industry oversight, contract development, and compliance issues.
For those who are interested, these issues are addressed in parts 2-5 of the ‘GAC advice to the Board’ section of the attached Prague communique.
I’m happy to discuss any of this, and look forward to seeing you all again at a future meeting.
Cheers,
Peter



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

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.


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

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/rt4-whois/attachments/20120704/79885f7b/attachment.html