WHOIS Review Team Final Report and Further S teps

1. WHOIS Review Team Final Report and Further Steps Michael Yakushev, cctld.ru Board Member

2. WHOIS Policy Review Team • WHOIS existed before ICANN (1982-) • Review of WHOIS Policy is prescribed by AoC (2009) • Review Team was formed in October 2010 • Comprised representatives from across the ICANN constituencies, + law enforcement (UK), + independent experts (USA) • Number of working meetings in 2010-2012 • Final Report presented to the Board in May 2012 • 92 pages of the ‘body’ text + hundreds of pages of explanatory materials • All findings, statements and recommendation are made on the principle of absolute consensus

3. WHOIS Policy RT Final Report • English version on the ICANN site: http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/whois-rt-final-report-11may12-en.htm • Русский перевод (PDF) –> там же • 中文文本的(PDF) ->在同一地点 • Comment close: June 10, 2012 • Reply closed: July 12, 2012

4. WHOIS PRT Final Report: Structure • Executive Summary • PART I – Scope of Work and Definitions • Review Team; Scope of Work & Key Definitions • PART II - ICANN WHOIS Policy and Its Implementation • History of WHOIS Policy; Implementation of WHOIS Policy – ICANN Compliance Efforts; IDNs • PART III – The Extent to Which ICANN’s Existing Policy and Its Implementation Are Effective in Meeting Stakeholders Needs • Understanding the Needs of Stakeholders; Gap Analysis; Recommendations • PART IV – Appendices • Effectiveness of ICANN’s WHOIS Compliance Effort (Correspondence) • Methodology and Outreach • Background and Glossary • User Insight Video of Internet Users Attempting to Identify a Website Owner

5. WHOIS RT Final Report: Recommendations 1-11 • (1) Strategic Priority for ICANN • (2) Single WHOIS Policy Document • (3) Outreach (cross-community, outside ICANN, consumer awareness) • (4) Compliance (best practice, transparency, clear reporting and accountability) • (5)-(9) Data Accuracy (communication, reduction of Substantial/Full Failure registrations, accuracy reports, clear and enforceable chain of contractual agreements, metrics to track the impact of the annual WHOIS Data Reminder Policy notices to registrants) • (10) Data Access – Privacy and Proxy Services (ICANN to regulate and oversee privacy and proxy service providers) • (11) Data Access – Common Interface(Internic Service to display full registrant data for all gTLD

6. Implementation of WHOIS Policy in Relation to Internationalized Domain Names • Issue of non-Latin scripts existed before IDNs implementation (problem of translation/transliteration of real names and addresses) • Lack of support for non-ASCII characters -> additional data inaccuracies -> additional barrier for non-ASCII users to provide accurate data • Some ccTLD registries and registrars implemented ad hoc solutions • New gTLD’s (2012) -> some of them IDN’s • Most urgent issues to address: • What data is needed from the registrant, • How this data will be represented in the data model, • How this data will be accessed through registration data services

7. Recommendation 12-14s (IDNs) • (12) ICANN should task a working group within six months of publication of this report, to determine appropriate internationalized domain name registration data requirements and evaluate available solutions (including solutions being implemented by ccTLDs). • 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 WG should report within a year of being tasked. • (13) The final data model, including (any) requirements for the translation or transliteration of the registration data, should be incorporated in the relevant Registrar and Registry agreements within 6 months of adoption of the WG’s recommendations by the ICANN Board. • If these recommendations are not finalized in time for the next revision of such agreements, explicit placeholders for this purpose should be put in place in the agreements for the new gTLD program at this time, and in the existing agreements when they come up for renewal. • (14) In addition, metrics should be developed to maintain and measure the accuracy of the internationalized registration data and corresponding data in ASCII, with clearly defined compliance methods and targets, as per the details in Recommendations 5-9

8. WHOIS RT Final Report: Recommendations 15 and 16 • (15) Detailed and Comprehensive Plan • ICANN should provide a detailed and comprehensive plan within 3 months after the submission of the Final WHOIS Review Team report that outlines how ICANN will move forward in implementing these recommendations. • (16) Annual Status Reports • ICANN should provide at least annual written status reports on its progress towards implementing the recommendations of this WHOIS Review Team. The first of these reports should be published one year, at the latest, after ICANN publishes the implementation plan mentioned in recommendation 15, above. Each of these reports should contain all relevant information, including all underlying facts, figures and analyses.

9. Gaps to be bridged • WHOIS data accuracy needs to be stronger • Role of ICANN needs to be enhanced • Registrars and Registries should be more responsible • Registrants are ultimately responsible • Proxy registration system needs to be fixed • {better interaction and uniform approach with ccTLD’s experience}

10. Thank you for your attention! • Спасибо за внимание! • 感谢您的关注！ m.yakushev@cctld.ru