<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
Re: [council] Whois Review Team Final Report
To be clear, the RrSG doesn't believe all the recommendations require PDPs.
Our comments on the letter were meant to show that we don't agree the ICANN
entity has certain unilateral capabilities to impose policy or business
methods, that work product must eventually become policy, etc.
With regard to communications, I agree with John and Jeff. I'm happy to
contribute whatever is necessary to expediently make our collective thoughts
known to the board.
On Aug 29, 2012, at 3:02 PM, <john@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> Brian, Jeff, et. al.,
>
> I must concur with Jeff on this matter. The BC and other constituencies
> have already offered public comment on the work of the RT. We COULD
> negotiate a single letter from the Council, but we would certainly need
> more time than we have. Whether we SHOULD be writing such a letter is
> another matter and an issue worth some discussion.
>
> Cheers,
>
> John Berard
> Founder
> Credible Context
> 58 West Portal Avenue, #291
> San Francisco, CA 94127
> m: 415.845.4388
>
>
>
> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: RE: [council] Whois Review Team Final Report
> From: "Winterfeldt, Brian" <bwinterfeldt@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> Date: Wed, August 29, 2012 10:27 am
> To: "council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx" <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>
> Dear Jeff:
>
> 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.
>
> Thank you,
>
> Brian
>
> Brian J. Winterfeldt
> bwinterfeldt@xxxxxxxxxxx
> Steptoe
>
> -------------------------------------------
> From: Neuman, Jeff[SMTP:JEFF.NEUMAN@xxxxxxxxxx]
> Sent: Wednesday, August 29, 2012 8:57:50 AM
> To: Mason Cole; Winterfeldt, Brian
> Cc: council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: RE: [council] Whois Review Team Final Report
> Auto forwarded by a Rule
>
> All,
>
> 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
>
>
> From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
> On Behalf Of Mason Cole
> Sent: Tuesday, August 28, 2012 2:10 PM
> To: Winterfeldt, Brian
> Cc: council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: [council] Whois Review Team Final Report
>
>
>
> Brian --
>
>
>
> 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.
>
>
>
> Mason
>
>
>
> On Aug 27, 2012, at 8:26 AM, Winterfeldt, Brian wrote:
>
>
> 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.”]]
>
>
>
>
> 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 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.]]
>
>
>
> 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 recommendation.
>
>
>
> The GNSO Council welcomes comments from the Board concerning this input.
>
>
>
> Stéphane Van Gelder
>
> Chair, GNSO Council
>
>
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|