Jump to content

First Registration Directory Service Review: Difference between revisions

From ICANNWiki
Newer edit →
VisualWikitext
JP (talk | contribs)
Bureaucrats, Check users, lookupuser, Administrators, translator
3,197 edits
Created page with "The '''First Registration Directory Service Review''' (RDS1), also known as the first WHOIS Review, was conducted between 2010 and 2012, with implementation of improvements co..."
(No difference)

Revision as of 18:00, 21 May 2021

The First Registration Directory Service Review (RDS1), also known as the first WHOIS Review, was conducted between 2010 and 2012, with implementation of improvements continuing through December 2016.[1] Cite error: Invalid parameter in <ref> tag

ICANN's board enshrined these commitments (and the associated reviews) in its Bylaws in Article 1 (Mission, Commitments, and Core Values)[2] and in Article 4 (Accountability and Review).[3] Article 4.6 deals with "Specific Reviews," each of which are tied to one of the commitments in the Affirmation of Commitments.[4]

The Organizational Effectiveness Committee of the board oversees the conduct of specific reviews.[5] The RDS is one such review. The Affirmation of Commitments specifies that RDS reviews should be carried out by volunteers from among the community, as well as "experts, and representatives of the global law enforcement community, and global privacy experts."[6]

Initiating Steps[edit | edit source]

An initial call for volunteers was issued on June 1, 2010.[7] To assist in selection and recruitment, the GNSO, ALAC, and SSAC all submitted screening requirements for volunteer applicants.[8]

The additional requirements of the Affirmation of Commitments prompted the review team to issue a second call for volunteers, specifically addressing independent experts, members of the law enforcement community, and global policy experts.[9]

Process and Findings[edit | edit source]

The review team's planning process identified three topic areas for inquiry and research:

  1. Clarity of WHOIS Policy;
  2. Existing laws, privacy issues, and the use of anonymized or proxy WHOIS information; and
  3. ICANN's compliance and enforcement activities.

The team created an "other issues" placeholder in the event that the community or further investigation raised additional issues.[10]

The review team created subteams to contextualize and investigate these issues and the specific questions raised in the Terms of Reference document.[11] In addition, the review team issued an RFP for research into consumer trust in WHOIS.[12] UserInsight was selected for the consumer survey. The team also conducted a survey of law enforcement officials regarding WHOIS policy and access to necessary information.[13]

The collected findings of the RDS1 team, along with recommendations for improvement, were submitted in a draft report on December 5, 2011.[14] Thirty-five comments were submitted, including a large number of individual comments.[15] ICANN 43 was held just as the comment period was closing, and the WHOIS Review was a topic of both cross community meetings and work sessions.[16]

Final Report and Implementation[edit | edit source]

Building on public comments to the draft report, as well as comments at ICANN meetings and the consumer trust survey, the RDS1 team submitted its final report on May 11, 2012[17] The report contained sixteen recommendations connected to the findings of the review team, with five central themes:

  • ICANN should make WHOIS Policy a strategic priority:
    • craft a single WHOIS policy;
    • improve outreach;
    • create a detailed and comprehensive plan regarding implementation of report recommendations; and
    • report annually on status and progress of implementation.
  • ICANN should ensure that its compliance efforts conform to best practices.
  • ICANN must improve WHOIS data accuracy (multiple recommendations).
  • ICANN should improve data access:
    • implement regulations for WHOIS privacy/proxy services; and
    • overhaul InterNIC to improve usability.
  • ICANN should implement changes to WHOIS to accommodate internationalized domain names.
  1. ↑ WHOIS Review - Implementation Report, December 2016
  2. ↑ ICANN Bylaws, Article 1
  3. ↑ ICANN Bylaws, Article 4
  4. ↑ ICANN Bylaws, Article 4.6
  5. ↑ ICANN.org - Organizational Effectiveness Committee
  6. ↑ ICANN.org - Affirmation of Commitments,
  7. ↑ Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named dashboard
  8. ↑ ICANN.org - SO/AC Requirements for RDS1, June 1, 2010
  9. ↑ ICANN.org - Call for Experts, July 26, 2010
  10. ↑ RDS1 - Terms of Reference, June 8, 2010
  11. ↑ RDS1 Workspace - Subteams
  12. ↑ ICANN.org - Request for Proposals, July 10, 2011
  13. ↑ RDS1 Final Report, Appendix, Methodology and Outreach, May 11, 2012
  14. ↑ RDS1 Draft Final Report, December 5, 2011 (PDF)
  15. ↑ Summary Report of Public Comment Proceeding, April 3, 2012
  16. ↑ ICANN 43 - Full Schedule
  17. ↑ RDS1 Final Report, May 11, 2012

Generic Names Supporting Organization. Develops and recommends to the Board substantive policies relating to generic top-level domains and other responsibilities set forth in the Bylaws (ICANN Bylaws).

At-Large Advisory Committee. Considers and provides advice on the activities of ICANN related to the interests of individual Internet users (ICANN Bylaws). Not to be confused with the Non-Commercial Stakeholder Group.

Security and Stability Advisory Committee. Advises the ICANN community and Board on matters relating to the security and integrity of the Internet's naming and address allocation systems (ICANN Bylaws).

Retrieved from "https://icannwiki.org/index.php?title=First_Registration_Directory_Service_Review&oldid=1315052"