RE: [council] Whois Review Team Final Report
- To: "council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx" <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: RE: [council] Whois Review Team Final Report
- From: "Winterfeldt, Brian" <bwinterfeldt@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 29 Aug 2012 10:27:09 -0700
- Accept-language: en-US
- Acceptlanguage: en-US
- List-id: council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Sender: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Thread-index: Ac2GC4SUT2SgH5q+ReyOOglZf9aWTg==
- Thread-topic: [council] Whois Review Team Final Report
One solution may be to deliver a summary letter to the Board by August 31, 2012
briefly explaining that the GNSO Council was unable to reach an agreement on
which recommendations require a Policy Development Process and that individual
comments from each Stakeholder Group and Constituency have been requested.
Based on the input we have received thus far, some believe that only a handful
of the WHOIS RT recommendations require GNSO policy work, (which we understood
to be the impetus for the decision to parse through recommendations per the
Council's July 20, 2012 discussion). However, others believe that all sixteen
recommendations require GNSO policy work. That is a fundamental difference,
and as Stéphane phrased it, a "direct contradiction," which likely vitiates the
possibility for general agreement on the matter.
I am interested in everyone's thoughts and happy to take a stab at a first
draft of a very short letter to the Board today if we decide to take this route.
Brian J. Winterfeldt
Sent: Wednesday, August 29, 2012 8:57:50 AM
To: Mason Cole; Winterfeldt, Brian
Subject: RE: [council] Whois Review Team Final Report
Auto forwarded by a Rule
It seems clear that we either need more time to work on this letter than August
31st or should just agree to not send a Council letter, but leave this to the
stakeholder groups/constituencies. If we do decide to do the letter, we will
need a few more weeks at least to approve on the September 13th call.
Jeffrey J. Neuman
Neustar, Inc. / Vice President, Business Affairs
On Behalf Of Mason Cole
Sent: Tuesday, August 28, 2012 2:10 PM
To: Winterfeldt, Brian
Subject: Re: [council] Whois Review Team Final Report
Thank you for your and the RT's continued work on Whois issues. On behalf of
the RrSG, our feedback is provided below, in line. I am happy to assist with
drafting from here if I can be of help.
On Aug 27, 2012, at 8:26 AM, Winterfeldt, Brian wrote:
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
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
Brian J. Winterfeldt
+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
+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."]]
RRSG: The RrSG agrees. Our group is very appreciative of the work, but as has
been pointed out before by council members, work output doesn't necessarily
represent the expectation of action.
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.]]
RRSG: The RrSG agrees with the RySG here.
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
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.]]
RRSG: The RrSG agrees again. Further "all appropriate measures" is undefined
and is unfortunately subject to differing interpretation. The RrSG recommends
the GNSO Council request that ICANN Compliance outline a plan to reach these
goals, along with their expected timeframe and metrics. These should be
published before implementation of any new compliance initiatives meant to
address these metrics.
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.]]
RRSG: The RrSG agrees again with the RySG. The Whois RT report plainly says
privacy / proxy accreditation should be developed in consultation with all
interested stakeholders. While regulation of privacy / proxy may be a laudable
outcome, nowhere does the RAA suggest the ICANN corporation has the authority
to make such an imposition, and it's false to say it does. The RrSG has
discussed privacy / proxy accreditation with ICANN staff in the course of RAA
negotiations and our experience is that, unfortunately, like many community
desires, it is complex, involves the interests of multiple stakeholders, and
has cost an resource impacts on ICANN staff and the community. It is an
appropriate issue for a PDP and not unilateral action.
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
The GNSO Council welcomes comments from the Board concerning this input.
Stéphane Van Gelder
Chair, GNSO Council