[APAC-Discuss] ICANN proposed EWG - APRALO views?

Holly Raiche h.raiche at internode.on.net
Tue Jul 30 03:56:16 UTC 2013


Thank you Satish for your comments.

At this stage, who would run the repository is not known. ARDS is really just a concept.  If enough people think it worth going ahead, then the discussion will focus on the many vexed issues.  In the Initial EWG report, they list both advantages and disadvantages - and issues about who runs the repository and where are among the issues raised.  So there will be a lot of work ahead to flesh out the details.  This is just the start.

Holly


On 30/07/2013, at 1:28 PM, Satish Babu wrote:

> Hi Holly and Carlton
> Thanks for this update.
> 
> In my opinion, this is an initiative that we should support, given the significant shortcomings of the existing Whois. From a civil society perspective, a mechanism such as ARDS would enhance transparency and accountability.
> 
> On a related note, who would be entrusted with running of this repository ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> satish
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On Tue, Jul 30, 2013 at 2:14 AM, Carlton Samuels <carlton.samuels at gmail.com> wrote:
> Thanks very much for laying this out Holly.  Much obliged.
> 
> -Carlton
> 
> 
> ==============================
> Carlton A Samuels
> Mobile: 876-818-1799
> *Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround*
> =============================
> 
> 
> On Mon, Jul 29, 2013 at 7:19 AM, Holly Raiche <h.raiche at internode.on.net>wrote:
> 
> > Hi Everyone
> >
> > Those of you who were in Durban would have heard the presentation Carlton
> > and I did on the Initial report of the Expert Working Group on what is
> > called an Aggregated Registrants Data Service. (ARDS).  Essentially, the
> > idea would be to have a repository of Whois data.  It is the repository
> > that holds unauthorised data, verifies the data and then provides access to
> > that data - on a 'gated' basis (members of the public have access to
> > limited data, registered users have access to more data that is relevant to
> > the use they will have for that data).  The steps are:
> >  •Registrar collects registrant data – gTLD registry. gTLD registries
> > hold authoritative data
> > •ARDS (or other repository) as non-authoritative repository of all all
> > collected data elements
> > •Requestors apply for access to data – obtain access to
> > non-authoritative, or special cases, authoritative data
> > •ARDS repository provides validation of data, handling and auditing
> > access, handling complaints and imposing penalties for inappropriate access
> > At this stage, the ARDS suggestion is at the concept state. The Expert
> > Working Group is seeking feedback of what people think of the idea - of
> > whether to proceed with development of a more detailed proposal - with
> > feedback due by mid August. (For the full proposal, go to the ICANN site
> > and put EWG report in the search function).
> > Carlton, EVan, Rinalia and I spent some time after the presentation
> > discussing what we thought of the proposal - in light of two things:  the
> > fact that the RAA and related documents have just been passed by the Board
> > and have not been given time to see if they will improve issues like access
> > to Whois, and the accuracy of Whois data while embedding privacy
> > protections.
> > After that discussion, I made some dot point notes on what I think we were
> > all saying.
> >
> > *Concerns ALAC has had with the RAA, and in particular, Whois Accuracy
> > (reflected in final WHois Report)*
> > *-         inaccuracy of Whois data *
> > *-         aligned with it, unenforceable requirements on registrars*
> > *-         complete failure of compliance*
> > *-         abuse of privacy/proxy*
> > *-         lack of accreditation process for privacy/proxy service*
> > *** ***
> > *Changes to the RAA and accompanying documents*
> > *-         Applaud many of the changes including*
> > *-         Stronger obligations on registrars for verification *
> > *-         Stronger accuracy requirements*
> > *-         Stronger language  for enforcement*
> > *-         At least a skeleton framework for privacy/proxy services –
> > noting lack of details*
> > *-        *
> > *Concerns with June changes and related issues*
> > *-         With compliance – will have an even bigger task – many new
> > gTLDs, new metrics etc so resources already stretched*
> > *-         Don’t know outcome of audit – and what action will be taken*
> > *-         Still a requirement for open access for all Whois data –
> > unless is hidden behind a privacy/proxy service – so doesn’t recognise
> > graduated needs to Whois data*
> > *-         Still some concerns with RAA language*
> > * *
> > *Response to  EWG proposal*
> > *-         RAA changes haven’t been given a chance to work – BUT*
> > *-         It addresses many issues*
> > *-         Compliance – right now little if any faith in current
> > department but concerns if moved – power to enforce? Resources to enforce*
> > *-         Does allow gated access to data*
> > *-         Would provide mechanism for protection of privacy –
> > recognising the outstanding issues of who can be protected, for what, and
> > who has access*
> > *-         In general – welcome the concept and welcome that it
> > potentially addresses issues – but are concerns (as above)*****
> >
> > So please - Carlton and I would appreciate any feedback on the proposal.
> >  Is it worth proceeding with development of the concept?
> >
> > Holly
> >
> >
> > *
> > *
> > *
> > *
> > *
> > *
> > *
> > *
> >
> _______________________________________________
> APAC-Discuss mailing list
> APAC-Discuss at atlarge-lists.icann.org
> https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/apac-discuss
> 
> Homepage for the region: http://www.apralo.org
> 




More information about the APAC-Discuss mailing list