Whois RT Draft Final Report - Comment by Members of the RrSG

[Graham Chynoweth <gchynoweth@xxxxxxx>]

GNSO Registrar Stakeholder Group Statement

Date: March, 18 2012.

Issue Background URL: 
http://www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/announcement-05dec11-en.htm

I.      BACKGROUND

This statement on the issue noted above is submitted on behalf of the GNSO 
Registrar Stakeholder Group (RrSG).  The statement that follows represents the 
position of the RrSG (or members thereof) as further detailed at the end of the 
document.  This RrSG statement was arrived at through discussion on the RrSG 
email list.

II.     INTRODUCTION

We would like to state that it commends the staff and members of the WHOIS 
Review Team for their efforts during the course of the review and in preparing 
the report.  WHOIS is a complicated issue with great implications for many 
segments of the community. 

Additionally, we would like to highlight the universally understanding that the 
WHOIS system is being used for purposes it was never designed to serve, so all 
incremental changes should be part of a larger strategy to replace the system, 
as has been recommended by many community members, importantly the Security and 
Stability Advisory Committee.

III.    COMMENTS
Recommendation #1 - A Single WHOIS Policy
We strongly support this recommendation.  The Registrar Registration Agreement 
is not the appropriate location of ICANN’s WHOIS policy.  A consolidated, 
concise statement of WHOIS policy that exists outside the RAA is an important, 
positive development. However, we note that word choice and grammatical 
structure, while sometimes seemingly insignificant, can have material impacts 
on policy.  Thus, ICANN Staff should consolidate language with care so that the 
policy is not changed through the process of consolidation.  Furthermore, it 
would be useful to clearly articulate the purpose of the WHOIS system, and 
document the high-level policy principles and objectives for the policy at the 
outset of the single policy document.  We believe this will increase the 
effectiveness of the policy because, while the Registrars Accreditation 
Agreement documents an implementation of a WHOIS policy, it does not present a 
clear rationale for the policy’s existence.  Lastly, any such consolidated 
policy should be heavily referenced and subjected to comment prior to its 
active implementation.

Recommendation #2:  WHOIS Data Reminder Policy
The effectiveness of the existing WHOIS Data Reminder Policy is unclear.  Thus, 
given that implementing the policy creates an operational burden for 
Registrars, we believe that the policy should be reviewed and modified or 
replaced with a more effective policy.  

Recommendation #3:  Make WHOIS a Strategic Priority
We agree that resolving issues related to WHOIS, including but not necessarily 
limited to the purpose of collecting the data, should be a strategic priority 
of ICANN.

Recommendation #5:  Reduce Inaccurate WHOIS by 50% (year 1) and another 50% 
(year 2)
Existing tools and policies can reduce WHOIS records that render the registrant 
completely un-contactable.  While reducing WHOIS records of this type is and 
should be a focus of ICANN staff, we are concerned that use of a 50% reduction 
target is aggressive which is setting up any existing or revised policy, and 
the ICANN effort on this topic, up for failure.  While, large reductions in 
WHOIS inaccuracy are desirable, incremental reductions should also be 
recognized as important steps forward.   Further, and perhaps most importantly, 
a critical precursor to setting targets for reduction in ‘inaccurate’ WHOIS 
data, is reaching agreement on: (i) a precise definition of data “inaccuracy” 
and (ii) the method by which such inaccuracy can be measured.

Recommendation #6: Publish an annual report measuring "uncontactable" WHOIS 
records
Measurement of policy effectiveness is an important goal, however, given the 
significant cost of the 2009 NORC study, we urge ICANN staff to find, qualify 
and select a more cost-effective method for conducting annual measures of WHOIS 
data quality.

Recommendations #10 - #17
We applaud the WHOIS Review Team for its thorough examination of the privacy & 
proxy services industry and the challenges inherent in "thin" gTLD registries. 
However, we express concern that the Review Team may have exceeded the scope of 
its charge in both the depth and detail of these recommendations. As an 
alternative, we suggest that the Review Team should more fully engage in the 
bottom-up process by calling for formal community discussion and/or the 
establishment of a Policy Development Process on these subjects.  On the issue 
of community participation, we note that the Generic Name Supporting 
Organization Council initiated a Policy Development Process on the "thick 
WHOIS" issue at its 43rd meeting in San Jose, Costa Rica.

IV.     RRSG LEVEL OF SUPPORT
The following members of the RrSG support this statement:
a)      1API
b)      Blacknight Internet Solutions
c)      Cronon
d)      Dynamic Network Services
e)      EuroDNS
f)      Tucows
g)      NetEarth One


V.      NAMES & EMAIL ADDRESSES FOR POINTS OF CONTACT
a)      Chair:  Graham Chnoweth <gchynoweth@xxxxxxx> 
b)      Vice Chair: Matt Serlin <matt.serlin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
c)      Treasurer: Jeff Eckhaus <eckhaus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
d)      Secretary: Volker Greimann <vgreimann@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
e)      RrSG Point of Contact for this statement:  Graham Chnoweth 
<gchynoweth@xxxxxxx>