[NCSG-PC] Fwd: [council] Next steps for the Whois Accuracy Implementation Advisory Group
Tomslin Samme-Nlar
mesumbeslin at gmail.com
Fri May 2 00:52:06 EEST 2025
Thanks Farzi and @nyamamutondo at gmail.com <nyamamutondo at gmail.com> for your
responses.
Farzi, yes we did discuss that but it didn't appear that we had concluded
on it. I will pass this position to council mailing list if this is
agreeable to us all.
Remain blessed,
Tomslin
On Fri, 2 May 2025, 00:28 farzaneh badii, <farzaneh.badii at gmail.com> wrote:
> Tomslin,
>
> Didn't we agree to defer indefinitely? It would be good to review it and
> try to bring privacy to every domain name registrant regardless of where
> they are but I don't think that is a battle we can win considering we don't
> have the resources and can't do that through this group and we can work on
> implementation of DPS which applies to all registrars and registries.
>
>
>
>
>
> Farzaneh
>
>
> On Tue, Apr 29, 2025 at 9:06 PM Tomslin Samme-Nlar <mesumbeslin at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> FYI team.
>>
>> I am keen to hear any thoughts on the questions posed below on the steps
>> for the Whois Accuracy Implementation Advisory Group.
>>
>> @Stephanie E Perrin <stephanie at digitaldiscretion.ca> looking to you for
>> some guidance as well being our WHOIS expert then.
>>
>> Remain blessed,
>> Tomslin
>>
>>
>> ---------- Forwarded message ---------
>> From: DiBiase, Gregory via council <council at icann.org>
>> Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2025 at 02:28
>> Subject: [council] Next steps for the Whois Accuracy Implementation
>> Advisory Group
>> To: Council at icann.org <council at icann.org>
>>
>>
>> Dear Councilors,
>>
>>
>>
>> During our April meeting
>> <https://icann.zoom.us/rec/play/m7OxKCA5oQ9K_waOhDVno3cyrjdqXBktXf0uHaIGJT6I2Eb0FFfQeqFoKB_c4ubaOu_TbhzPckCYh6hD.AbQmFxwkA4Jfe_VV?accessLevel=meeting&canPlayFromShare=true&from=share_recording_detail&startTime=1744318875000&componentName=rec-play&originRequestUrl=https%3A%2F%2Ficann.zoom.us%2Frec%2Fshare%2F1BdJrVMYICLOfeH4W7CEh-q9Udop0TZrUmaQ47ekzkZxRkwQ1GOzSHEEEIEUHhU.YVb3zS-ocr9VoJ41%3FstartTime%3D1744318875000>,
>> we discussed potential next steps for the Whois Accuracy Implementation
>> Advisory Group. Background and potential options are below (the meeting
>> recording
>> <https://icann.zoom.us/rec/play/B88W5Be-pDdOMPBXvuhFOa3rbb00kxbNYyjHRGk-meJ7eQHa18dj1Uh26qT8Go6S3hRnLZuyyOYit559.zDpaiZC8Ajs4webS?accessLevel=meeting&canPlayFromShare=true&from=share_recording_detail&startTime=1744318875000&componentName=rec-play&originRequestUrl=https%3A%2F%2Ficann.zoom.us%2Frec%2Fshare%2F1BdJrVMYICLOfeH4W7CEh-q9Udop0TZrUmaQ47ekzkZxRkwQ1GOzSHEEEIEUHhU.YVb3zS-ocr9VoJ41%3FstartTime%3D1744318875000>
>> includes additional). Please discuss with your SGs and provide feedback by *Friday,
>> 2 May.*
>>
>>
>>
>> *What is this procedure?*
>>
>>
>>
>> ICANN’s Procedure For Handling Registration Data Directory Services
>> Conflicts with Privacy Law
>> <https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/rdds-conflicts-procedure-2024-02-21-en>
>> is a procedure that allows Contracted Parties to demonstrate when they are
>> prevented by local laws from fully complying with the provisions of ICANN
>> contracts regarding personal data in RDDS. After receiving a recommendation
>> from the 2003 Whois Task Force, the GNSO launched a PDP on this topic in
>> 2005, and ICANN org implemented a procedure in 2006. The procedure was
>> updated in 2017 to include an alternative trigger.
>>
>>
>>
>> *Why is the Council considering this now? *
>>
>>
>>
>> Following the addition of the new alternative trigger to the procedure in
>> 2017, the GNSO Council was set to review the procedure by launching a PDP.
>> However, because the EPDP on the Temporary Specification was engaged in
>> parallel work, the GNSO Council decided to pause the call for volunteers
>> until the EPDP Team delivered its report. Following the publication of the
>> Final Report, ICANN org and Contracted Parties agreed to prioritize their
>> work on the Data Processing Specification prior to revisiting the Conflicts
>> Procedure.
>>
>>
>>
>> ICANN org published the Data Processing Specification
>> <https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/data-processing-specification-requests-en#:~:text=The%20DPS%20is%3A,between%20%22independent%20controllers%22).>
>> (DPS) in January 2025. Now that the DPS is complete, the Council is
>> considering if/how it should proceed on reviewing the Conflicts Procedure.
>>
>>
>>
>> *Questions to consider?*
>>
>>
>>
>> As discussed during the Council meeting and brought up councilors, some
>> of the factors to consider in determining how to proceed include:
>>
>>
>>
>> - Do Contracted Parties (the parties who would use the procedure)
>> believe this is an urgent need as no Contracted Parties have used the
>> procedure in years?
>> - Does the new Registration Data Policy, which becomes effective in
>> August, obviate the need for a modification to the procedure?
>> - Does the Council believe this should be a priority, which would
>> require other work to be de-prioritized?
>>
>>
>>
>> *Potential Options*
>>
>>
>>
>> 1. *Defer/Leave procedure as is*
>> - If Councilors (particularly Contracted Parties) do not believe
>> this procedure needs an urgent modification, further work could be:
>> 1. *Deferred indefinitely* until the Community communicates a
>> need to review (in other words, leave the procedure alone until the
>> Community informs Council it needs to be reviewed.)
>> 2. *Deferred for a finite amount of time* (1 year, 2 years,
>> etc.) to revisit if updates may be needed
>> 2. *Proceed with original plan - ICANN org to draft modification
>> in consultation with CPs*
>> - If Councilors (particularly Contracted Parties) believe this
>> work is urgent and important, the Council *could request ICANN org
>> to draft a modification* to the procedure in consultation with
>> Contracted Parties before sharing with the Council. (As noted above, due to
>> resource constraints, the Council would need to determine what work can be
>> de-prioritized in order to prioritize this work.)
>> 3. *Terminate/Retire procedure*
>> - During the meeting, some councilors noted it may be worth
>> terminating/retiring this procedure due to flaws. It is important to note
>> that the termination/retirement of the procedure *would require
>> further policy work* as this procedure is the product of GNSO
>> policy recommendations. If the Council does not want to extend resources on
>> this procedure at this time, it may be worth exploring Option 1.
>>
>>
>>
>> *Deadline for Feedback?*
>>
>>
>>
>> Please socialize with your respective SG/Cs and let the Council know how
>> you think it should proceed by *Friday, 2 May.*
>>
>>
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> Greg
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> council mailing list -- council at icann.org
>> To unsubscribe send an email to council-leave at icann.org
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your
>> personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance
>> with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and
>> the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You
>> can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or
>> configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or
>> disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
>> _______________________________________________
>> NCSG-PC mailing list
>> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is
>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc
>>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-pc/attachments/20250502/2caf4cc8/attachment-0001.htm>
More information about the NCSG-PC
mailing list