Re: [gnso-rap-dt] WHOIS scope query

[Faisal Shah <fshah@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Hi Greg,

I agree that we should seek out a recommendation from the GNSO on how we
move forward with the WhoIs issue in our WG.  However, I don¹t necessarily
agree that we should suggest leaving WhoIs out of the list of abuses; WhoIs
abuse clearly is a form of registration abuse or, at a minimum, an enabler
of abuse and as such we should be discussing WhoIs in that context.
Therefore, I think that the paragraph that begins with ³ Our questions to
the Council are....² (and a few other areas) should at the very least be
modified since it too leading. It essentially creates the impression that we
do not want to substantively address the WhoIs issue in our group. I think
overall that the letter should be less biased (and more objective) and
simply seek out GNSO advice on moving forward with the WhoIs matter.

Thanks,
>>> 
Faisal


On 7/13/09 8:09 AM, "Greg Aaron" <gaaron@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> Dear group:
>  
> Below please find a draft to the GNSO Council, asking for advice regarding how
> WHOIS fits within the scope and charter of our WG.
>  
> All comments are welcome.  Please post them to the list this week.  Please
> comment on items a) and b); I want to make sure they accurately reflect our
> recent discussions.  We will reconfirm level of support and finalize the
> letter in our 20 July meeting.
>  
> With best wishes,
> --Greg
>  
> * * * * * * 
>  
> Dear Avri, Chuck, and Mike:
>  
> I am writing to you on behalf of the Registration Abuse Policies Working Group
> (RAPWG).  We kindly request the Council's guidance and clarification regarding
> a charter issue.
>  
> As you know, the RAPWG charter contains the broad mandate to "identify which
> aspects of the subject of registration abuse are within ICANN's mission to
> address and which are within the set of topics on which ICANN may establish
> policies that are binding on gTLD registry operators and ICANN-accredited
> registrars," and to "gather facts, define terms, provide the appropriate focus
> and definition of the policy issue(s), if any, to be addressed."
>  
> During the RAPWG's work, the issue of WHOIS has been raised.  WHOIS is a topic
> within GNSO policy-making scope, and an area around which there are abuse and
> compliance issues.  And WHOIS issues are certainly a factor in other abuse
> areas -- for example, criminals who register domain names provide inaccurate
> contact information.
>  
> On the other hand, we are also aware of the very long history of WHOIS
> discussions in the GNSO, and WHOIS efforts the GNSO currently has underway.
> (See: http://gnso.icann.org/issues/whois/ ).  It is our understanding that the
> 2005-2007 GNSO WHOIS Task Force did not arrive at supermajority support for
> any of the proposals it considered.  After that, the GNSO Council concluded in
> October 2007 that a "comprehensive, objective, and quantifiable understanding
> of key factual issues regarding the gTLD WHOIS system would benefit future
> GNSO policy development efforts", received comment from the public and the
> GAC, and created the WHOIS Hypotheses WG.  That group delivered its report in
> August 2008 
> (http://gnso.icann.org/issues/whois/whois-study-hypothesis-group-report-to-cou
> ncil-26aug08.pdf), proposing a number of core questions regarding WHOIS
> misuse, contractual compliance, privacy services, and WHOIS accuracy.  The
> Policy staff is now engaged in developing the costs and feasibility of
> conducting six of those studies.  To summarize, it seems that previous
> group(s) failed to reach consensus on WHOIS issues, the Council concluded that
> objective and quantifiable data must be developed in order to have WHOIS
> policy discussions, the Council convened a group to frame the needed areas of
> study, and work now is underway regarding the WHOIS questions the Council
> chose.  Is this correct?
>  
> The RAPWG membership has preferences, around which we have rough consensus:
> a) because of the past and present GNSO efforts, leave WHOIS off our list of
> registration abuses for major examination, research, and
> recommendation-making. And,
> b) include examples and background in its report when WHOIS issues are a
> factor in other abuse issues.
> However, some members feel that WHOIS should be a central topic of discussion
> in the RAPWG, that we do research on the topic, and potentially make
> recommendations.
>  
> Our questions to the Council therefore are:  May WHOIS be excluded in whole or
> in part from the RAPWG's charter?  How can the Charter be modified to ensure
> that the RAPWG avoids duplicating previous and current GNSO efforts?  For
> example, should we avoid the areas already examined by the WHOIS Hypotheses
> WG?
>  
> A practical effect of undertaking examination of WHOIS issues is that it will
> extend the RAPWG's life by an unknown amount of time.  Please note that the
> RAPWG is examining a long list of other topics, including cybersquatting,
> front-running, and cybercrime-related issues.  A full list is in the latest
> "RAPWG Abuse Categories and Types" document at:
> https://st.icann.org/reg-abuse-wg/index.cgi?registration_abuse_policies_workin
> g_group
>  
> Thank you for your advice, and we look forward to hearing from you.
>  
> Respectfully submitted,
> --Greg Aaron
> Chair, RAPWG
>  
>