[ALAC] Analysis of WHOIS AoC RT Recommendations.

Tue Sep 4 22:35:22 UTC 2012

On Wed, Sep 5, 2012 at 10:05 AM, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca>wrote:

>  Sala, my comments below.
>
> Thanks Alan, I have responded in kind.
> At 04/09/2012 02:34 PM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote:
>
> Dear Alan, and fellow ALAC,
>
> I find that the fact that the controversy within the GNSO where they
> questioned your standing as improper. Since this is the second incident at
> least that I have become aware of, I would suggest that the ALAC Chair has
> a chat with the GNSO Chair to raise our concerns. My view is that ALAC
> liaisons represent the ALAC and act as a bridge and to insult Alan is to
> insult us all. This can be done diplomatically of course. As promised, I
> found the time, lost a few hours but all for a good cause...[image: []]Well I am off to breakfast...got something else due today.
>
>
> Although at times individuals have questions whether I am properly
> representing the ALAC, that has not happened in regard to this topic, and
> it has never happened at a formal GNSO level, always by individuals.
>
> In that case I withdraw my suggestion to the ALAC chair.
>
> After reading the Whois Report (92 pages) [referred to as "*Report*" in
> my comments] and your assessment of which recommendations do not require
> any prior Policy development. These are my comments in response to your
> call for feedback.
>
> *Recommendation1: To make Whois a Strategic Priority
> *The commissioning of the Review by ICANN is an indication of the
> strategic importance and manner in which the Review Team was constituted.
> However, ICANN needs to  monitor and evaluate the implementation process.
> As far as the GNSO is concerned they have following advice from the GAC
> undertaken to do four studies namely the Whois Misuse Study; Whois Proxy
> and Privacy Abuse; Whois Registrant Identification and Whois Proxy &
> Privacy Relay and Reveal Study which the Report says is due for completion
> in 2012. I am not sure what the status of the Studies are but I can only
> hypothesize that to the extent that this would affect existing consensus
> Policies, then parts of the PDP may apply. However, if the existing
> consensus policies address in principle areas that may require a PDP
> process then we should be open to that. I understand that this may be a
> negligible caveat.
>
>
> It is correct that addressing the substantive Whois issues may well
> require (well, almost surely require) GNSO policy development, that is not
> the subject of this Rec. It is solely that the ICANN go on records as
> saying it is important and conveying that message out to the GNSO as well
> as other parts of the wider ICANN community.
>
> By the way, do you know when in 2012 the studies are due to be completed.
> I would be most interested in reading the Reports.
>
> *Recommendation 2 Single Whois Policy
> *I agree with your assessment. The Report mentions that there is a
> current gTLD Policy as set out in the gTLD Registry and Registrar contracts
> and GNSP Consensus Policies and Procedures. So there is no need for the PDP
> to be initiated.
>
> *Recommendation 3 Outreach
>
> *I agree with your assessment that there is no need for a gNSO Policy
> development. Whilst* *there may not be need for a gNSO Policy for
> Outreach the Report does identify the need to move beyond the confines of
> the ICANN community to involve them. Although I read the report, I did not
> read the Appendix and note that in terms of studies done on consumers from
> 8-10 countries, it was unclear from the report which countries were
> selected and it would have been good to have it footnoted like the rest of
> the other stuff. Consumer groups like Consumer International etc. I found
> it interesting given the wake of the Ottawa Principles by the OECD
> countries on taxation that they did not make submissions given that they
> have a stake in it as well.  It is possible that they made submissions and
> I missed it.
>
> *Recommendation 4 Compliance
> *
> I agree with your assessment that there is no need for a GNSO Policy to be
> initiated. My view is that there only needs to be self regulatory measures
> put in place by Registrars and I commend the CINC for reporting 97%
> accuracy levels. My view is that there needs to be gold stars [image: []] [image:
> []] handed out by ICANN to Registrars and Resellers who comply. This can
> be published and verified independently on the ICANN website.There can also
> be incentives such as if you don't meet acceptable compliance levels and
> don't have clear plans that meet ICANN's satisfaction, please don't bother
> applying for a gTLD. I would also hasten to endorse the findings within the
> Report to review and improve all relevant compliance tools and create new
> ones where necessary before the gTLDs are assigned and become operational.
> Who knows maybe this lag time of waiting can be put to good use.
>
>
> *Recommendation 5 Data Accuracy [Communicate Need]
> *The outcomes of the Studies currently being undertaken by the GNSO
> coupled with the NORC Study will definitely form the empirical basis
> necessary for further policy development in this area both by the GNSO and
> also by ICANN. Data Accuracy is critical in order to navigate through the
> Internet with ease. To a large extent, this is self regulatory and with
> countries all around the world creating Strategies to secure their Cyber
> Environment, it is only a matter of time before it is legislated. To avoid
> external regulations forcing data accuracy it is much more easier and
> productive to ensure that there is data accuracy. It is of great concern
> that the NORC Report shows a 23% no failure rate and 20% full failure and I
> wonder about the 57%. I think Data Accuracy is all our responsibility and
> not just Registrars but a collective corporate responsibility issue. I
> agree with the suggestion by the Business Community (see page 85 of the
> Report) that the RAA should be amended to make it mandatory for contracted
> parties to verify WHOIS information when registration occurs and when
> domain names are renewed. I would add though that is and when there are
> planned transitions where there are cut off dates for renewing and updating
> their information that this can also be worded into the RAA to enable
> Registrars to have sufficient room to issue notices of that nature. For
> this to work, it will require a Policy and yes either from the GNSO or
> ICANN so that this can be referred to in the contractual arrangements.
>
> *Recommendation 6 Data Accuracy:*
> I would say that there is a need for the GNSO to create a PDP to ensure
> that there is Data Accuracy. To a large extent compliance in relation to
> data accuracy has been self regulatory and dependent on the Registrars.
> Were this to be taken away and (best case scenario: ICANN Compliance; worst
> case scenario: legislated) it would mean transition to increasing accuracy,
> voluntary or otherwise would be enforced. It follows that as per the
> recommendation in report (see page 87 para 11], "ICANN should take
> appropriate measures to reduce the number of WHOIS registrations that fall
> into the accuracy groups Substantial Failure and Full Failure (as defined
> by the NORC Data Accuracy Study, 2009/10) by 50% within 12 months and by
> 50% again over the following 12 months", it is far more beneficial and
> useful to manage this process internally.
>
>
> The registrars and registries have taken the position "that the
> recommendation to undertake “appropriate measures” to reduce the number of
> WHOIS registrations that fall into these accuracy groups may require a PDP
> depending on what these measures are."
>
> I would not advocate taking a stronger position that a PDP is definitely
> needed.
>
> I agree.
>
> *Recommendation 7 Measure and Report Whois Accuracy
> *My comments remain the same as for Recommendation 6
>
>
> The RySG and RrSG are apparently so far not worried about this one.
>
> Good to know.
>
> *Recommendation 8 Ensure that Compliance has tools to enforce Whois
> *
> There was a comment made by the Commercial Stakeholders Group in Singapore
> where they raised and in my view correctly the fact that private
> regulations are based on the ability to self regulate and enforce
> contractual obligations. There has been much debate and discussion in
> relation to strengthening the Compliance Team and giving them tools. My
> personal view is that all you need is a MS Excel spreadsheet, a phone, a
> clear tangible strategy for various regions in the world and they have more
> than enough tools necessary to get the job done. In simple speak, if they
> can't enforce compliance change the team. It is not an extraordinarily
> complex thing to enforce contracts. I am also not sure whether you need a
> policy for this. Do we need a policy to show us how to clean our kitchen?
> Incremental sanctions that are mentioned in page 68 of the Report are
> relevant. [Please excuse the sarcasm, it's the lack of sleep talking] Yes
> whilst I agree that the stick approach which is de-registration and
> de-accreditation, I personally feel that even without these additional
> revisions and provisions expressly woven into the contract by virtue of
> ICANN issuing a Notice to all Registrars to update their records is the
> equivalent of a legal notice as "someone" who is assigning names and
> numbers.
>
> *Recommendation 9 Data Accuracy: Track Impact of Whois Data Reminder
> Policy and Possible Replacement
> *
> The Report clearly outlines the fact that the Whois Data Reminder Policy
> so without a doubt there is need to review and revise the Policy. I would
> say, yes GNSO much initiate discussions. To save time there may be things
> within the Reminder Policy that do not need to be debated again although
> there is always the exception. There are many models of doing things and
> Registrars can select what works for them and it would help to at least
> outline a few generic ones. At the moment, I can deduce that the focus has
> been based on the actual "data" and if one methodology does'nt work, there
> should be enough innovation to suggest alternative methods that can be
> either customer centric or otherwise.
>
>
> The current WDRP is a Consensus Policy and as such must be adhered to by
> registrars. The report suggest that we first try to develop metrics to
> gauge's its effectiveness. If that is not possible, or implicitly if the
> metrics say it is not effective, a new policy shouldbe developed.
>
> This Report very bluntly mentions the failure of the WDRP. In terms of
> metrics, I would have thought that the NORC study would have teased these
> out already.
>
> *Recommendation 10 Data Access, Privacy and Proxy Services
>
> *There is much discussion and debate around the area and I would that a
> Draft Policy should be created by the GNSO modelled around the findings
> Council of European National TLD Registries as a starting point for policy
> discussion.
>
> *Recommendation 11 Internic
> *I think that this should be factored into the Strategy for Transition. I
> am not sure whose responsibility this is whether this is ICANN's or the
> GNSO or the entire community.
>
>
> It is purely an internal ICANN issue,of course with whatever input they
> solicit or is contributed.
>
> Alan
>
>
> *Recommendations 12-14 IDNs
>
> *It would be good to get some feedback on current work being done within
> the IETF on whether the Whois Protocol has been revised or modified. I have
> noted the comments that the Whois Protocol has no support for non-ASCII
> characters (see page 91) and also note the Review Team's comments that the
> failure to maintain registration data is not attributed to the failure of
> IDNs but just management of registration data.
>
> *Recommendation 15 Detailed and Comprehensive Plan
> *
> I gather that ICANN has yet to produce this Detailed and Comprehensive
> Plan. I do not think that PDP is needed. However, I could be wrong. I would
> suggest that in the event that ICANN has yet to draft one, why don't we
> initiate drafting this plan and handing it to the community. Should'nt take
> more than a week to produce a first draft. All the materials and resources
> needed are available already.
>
> *Recommendation 16 Annual Report
> *The recommendation within the report is too ambigious and perhaps it was
> meant to be that way so that it is broad and you can include anything you
> like. The downside is that if you don't spell out what you want precisely,
> you can also get nothing. So there's a question of balance.
>
> On Mon, Sep 3, 2012 at 1:24 PM, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca> wrote:
>  You will recall that at its last meeting, the ALAC unanimously approved
> a statement to the Board reiterating its position that all 16
> recommendations be implemented, and stressed that several were very
> important and clearly did not require any prior GNSO policy development.
> That ALAC statement can be found at http://tinyurl.com/ALAC-WHOIS-Advice.
>
> Based on further discussions, and in light of a controversy that has
> arisen in the GNSO, it was suggested that the ALAC explicitly identify
> which recommendations do not require any prior policy development, and
> which might required GNSO policy development.
>
> I had already done a brief review looking at which recommendations might
> require policy development. I have since revised this and present it to you
> here.
>
> In summary, of the 16 recommendations, 12 do not require GNSO policy
> development, 3 *might* require policy development, but that would depend on
> work carried out over the coming months and years, and 1 does require
> policy development by the GNSO along with the rest of the community, but in
> my opinion, does not require a formal PDP.
>
> The detailed analysis is attached. The report with the recommendations in
> detail can be found at
> http://www.icann.org/en/about/aoc-review/whois/final-report-11may12-en.pdf.
>
> It is essential that this analysis reach the Board before the Board
> Workshop scheduled for September 12-13.
>
> I am not sure if Olivier wants to hold a formal vote on this, or for the
> ALAC to just reach consensus, but regardless, the first step if for anyone
> who does not agree with this analysis to speak up.
>
> Alan
>
> _______________________________________________
> ALAC mailing list
>  ALAC at atlarge-lists.icann.org
>  https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac
>
> At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org
> ALAC Working Wiki:
> https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALAC)
>
>
>
>
> --
> Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala
> P.O. Box 17862
> Suva
> Fiji
>
> Twitter: @SalanietaT
> Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro
> Fiji Cell: +679 998 2851
>
>
>
>
> Content-Type: image/gif; name="1E3.gif"
> X-Attachment-Id: 1E3 at goomoji.gmail
> Content-ID: <1E3 at goomoji.gmail>
>
> Content-Type: image/gif; name="B68.gif"
> X-Attachment-Id: B68 at goomoji.gmail
> Content-ID: <B68 at goomoji.gmail>
>
>

-- 
Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala
P.O. Box 17862
Suva
Fiji

Twitter: @SalanietaT
Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro
Fiji Cell: +679 998 2851