Re: [council] Whois Review Team Final Report

[Stéphane Van Gelder <stephane.vangelder@xxxxxxxxx>]

Thanks Jeff.

I have informed the registrars of this. So have Mason and Yoav. I am hopeful 
that a response will be sent by the RrSG very soon.

Thanks,

Stéphane Van Gelder
Directeur Général / General manager
INDOM Group NBT France
----------------
Registry Relations and Strategy Director
Group NBT

Le 27 août 2012 à 19:04, Neuman, Jeff a écrit :

> I believe we need to get feedback from the Council on which positions have 
> consensus support vs. majority/minority, vs just some support.  For example, 
> it is possible that the RySG positions have more support than the ones 
> included by the IPC/BC.  We will not know until people weigh in.    
> Similarly, on some of the items the NCSG positions and the RySG match (in 
> others they do not).    The Registrars have not weighed in one way or the 
> other and we would need that to happen.
>  
> Jeffrey J. Neuman 
> Neustar, Inc. / Vice President, Business Affairs
> 
>  
> From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On 
> Behalf Of Stéphane Van Gelder
> Sent: Monday, August 27, 2012 12:01 PM
> To: GNSO Council List
> Subject: Re: [council] Whois Review Team Final Report
>  
> Thanks Brian,
>  
> I want to thank to full group for its work in preparing this draft and its 
> best efforts to meet the August 31 date set by the Board.
>  
> I have some comments on the draft itself.
>  
> The NCSG view is in direct contradiction with the main text. The NCSG says 
> that it believes all recommendations require GNSO policy work. The main text 
> says that "the GNSO Council recognizes that a SMALL number of" 
> recommendations need policy work. How would the group suggest this 
> contradiction be resolved?
>  
> On the RySG's first comment is it the group's recommendation that this text 
> be included in the final letter or not? Same question on the recommendation 6 
> and 10 comments.
>  
> Thanks,
>  
> Stéphane Van Gelder
> Directeur Général / General manager
> INDOM Group NBT France
> ----------------
> Registry Relations and Strategy Director
> Group NBT
>  
> Le 27 août 2012 à 17:26, Winterfeldt, Brian a écrit :
> 
> 
> Dear all:
>  
> I hereby forward to the full Council the latest draft letter to the ICANN 
> Board regarding the WHOIS Review Team Final Report, wherein we attempt to 
> flag potential ambiguous recommendations and assist the Board in determining 
> which Review Team recommendations are matters of GNSO policy development 
> versus which recommendations are matters of staff implementation or 
> negotiation with contracted parties. 
>  
> Achieving full consensus of the Council may prove difficult given the 
> divergence of viewpoints expressed in our small group, which we hope to have 
> accurately encapsulated in our draft below.  The proposed text below was 
> supported by myself and Wolf-Ulrich, and we have also included comments from 
> Jeff and Wendy in red font within brackets.
>  
> I would like to thank Jeff, Wendy, Wolf-Ulrich and Thomas for their input and 
> assistance in this matter, and I look forward to working with everyone toward 
> finalizing a letter for submission to the ICANN Board by the August 31, 2012 
> deadline.
>  
> Thank you,
>  
> Brian
>  
> Brian J. Winterfeldt  
> Partner
> bwinterfeldt@xxxxxxxxxxx
> 
> Steptoe
>  
> +1 202 429 6260 direct
> +1 202 903 4422 mobile
> +1 202 429 3902 fax
> Steptoe & Johnson LLP - DC
> 1330 Connecticut Avenue, NW
> Washington, DC 20036
> www.steptoe.com
>  
> +1 212.506.3935 direct
> +1 212.506.3950 fax
> Steptoe & Johnson LLP – New York
> 1114 Avenue of the Americas
> New York, NY 10036
> This message and any attached documents contain information from the law firm 
> Steptoe & Johnson LLP that may be confidential and/or privileged. If you are 
> not the intended recipient, please do not read, copy, distribute, or use this 
> information. If you have received this transmission in error, please notify 
> the sender immediately by reply e-mail and then delete this message.
>  
> _________________________________________________________
>  
>  
> TO:  ICANN Board
> FROM:  Chair of the GNSO Council
> VIA:  GNSO Liaison to the ICANN Board
>  
> I hereby forward to you the written public input of the GNSO Council on the 
> WHOIS Review Team Final Report pursuant to your resolution (2012.06.23.26) 
> from the meeting in Prague, Czech Republic, requesting that the GNSO provide 
> such input by 31 August 2012.  
>  
> As you are aware, the WHOIS Review Team’s scope, guided by the Affirmation of 
> Commitments, was to review the extent to which ICANN’s WHOIS policy and its 
> implementation are effective, meet legitimate needs of law enforcement and 
> promote consumer trust.  To this end, the Final Report, which issued on 11 
> May 2012, contained sixteen recommendations.
>  
> During its meeting on 20 July 2012, the GNSO Council considered the substance 
> of the WHOIS Review Team Final Report, as well as how to respond to the 
> Board’s request.  The GNSO Council recognizes, given the hard work and public 
> input already incorporated into the Final Report, that there is a reasonable 
> expectation by the Review Team for its recommendations be implemented as soon 
> as practicable. [[The NCSG disagrees.  Please cut this sentence.  The Review 
> Team can make recommendations but it can’t expect implementation simply by 
> dint of its hard work.  The NCSG has previously stated that any 
> implementation requires GNSO policy development. “The NCSG believes all 
> recommendations require GNSO Policy Development.”]]  However, the GNSO 
> Council also recognizes that a small number of the Review Team’s 
> recommendations may require future GNSO policy development.  Accordingly, the 
> written input this letter is intended to clarify potential ambiguity and 
> assist the Board in determining which Review Team recommendations are matters 
> of GNSO policy development versus which recommendations are matters of staff 
> implementation or negotiation with contracted parties.
>  
> Recommendation Two - Single WHOIS Policy.  The Review Team’s second 
> recommendation calls for the Board to oversee creation of a single WHOIS 
> policy document, and reference it in agreements with Contracted Parties, as 
> well as clearly document the current gTLD WHOIS policy as set out in the gTLD 
> Registry & Registrar contracts & Consensus Policies and Procedure. 
>  
> The GNSO Council notes that this recommendation carefully avoids the phrase 
> “policy development.”  It asks for documentation of the existing policy set 
> forth in the contracts and consensus policies.  It does not ask for the GNSO 
> council to review or develop any policies.  Accordingly, the GNSO Council 
> believes that this is not a recommendation for further GNSO policy 
> development.
>  
> [[The RySG agrees that if this recommendation means creation of a single 
> policy document that just summarizes all current relevant WHOIS policies, 
> then no PDP is required.  However, if this recommendation requires the 
> creation of a new single policy, then a PDP should be required.]]
>  
> Recommendation Three - Outreach.  The Review Team’s third recommendation 
> calls for ICANN to ensure that WHOIS policy issues are accompanied by 
> cross-community outreach, including outreach to the communities outside of 
> ICANN with a specific interest in the issues, and an ongoing program for 
> consumer awareness.
>  
> The GNSO Council views this recommendation as a modifier, or supplement, to a 
> number of other recommendations in the Final Report.  Accordingly, the GNSO 
> Council believes that this is not a recommendation necessitating GNSO policy 
> development.
>  
> 6.     [[Recommendation Six - Data Accuracy.  The sixth recommendation of the 
> Review Team instructs that 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) by 50% within 12 months and 50% again over the following 12 
> months.
> 
> The RySG believes 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.]]
> 
>  
> 
> Recommendation Ten - Data Access – Privacy and Proxy Services.  The Review 
> Team’s tenth recommendation essentially calls for ICANN to initiate processes 
> to regulate and oversee privacy and proxy service providers; processes should 
> be developed in consultation with all interested stakeholders and note 
> relevant GNSO studies; a possible approach to achieving this would be to 
> establish an accreditation system for all proxy/privacy service providers, 
> and consider the merits (if any) of establishing or maintaining a distinction 
> between privacy and proxy services; goal is to provide clear, consistent and 
> enforceable requirements for the operation of these services consistent with 
> national laws, and to strike an appropriate balance between stakeholders with 
> competing but legitimate interests—including privacy, data protection, law 
> enforcement, the industry around law enforcement and the human rights 
> community.
> 
>  
> The GNSO Council acknowledges that this recommendation can be read to 
> describe a GNSO policy development process.  However, in recognition of the 
> contemporaneous negotiation of the RAA, the GNSO Council recommends 
> that—notwithstanding any GNSO policy development process on this 
> recommendation—ICANN retain its authority to unilaterally impose regulation 
> of privacy and proxy services pursuant to the RAA in the event that no 
> consensus policy has been reached in a reasonably time frame, such as twelve 
> months from 31 August 2012.
>  
> [[The RySG strongly believes that ICANN can only initiate a process to 
> regulate and oversee privacy and proxy service providers through a PDP 
> process.  The RySG believes that the entirety of the Review Team’s tenth 
> recommendation does in fact require a PDP without any artificial time 
> constraints imposed.]]
>  
> Recommendation Twelve - Internationalized Domain Names.  The Review Team’s 
> twelfth recommendation calls for ICANN to task a working group within six 
> months of publication of their report, to determine appropriate 
> internationalized domain name registration data requirements and evaluate 
> available solutions; at a minimum, the data requirements should apply to all 
> new gTLDs, and the working group should consider ways to encourage 
> consistency of approach across the gTLD and (on a voluntary basis) ccTLD 
> space; the working group should report within a year.
>  
> The GNSO Council acknowledges that the work of the Internationalized 
> Registration Data Working Group “IRD WG” is already underway in regard to 
> this recommendation.
>  
> The GNSO Council welcomes comments from the Board concerning this input.
>  
> Stéphane Van Gelder
> Chair, GNSO Council