3,197
edits
Changes
First Registration Directory Service Review (view source)
Revision as of 18:00, 21 May 2021
, 3 years agoCreated 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..."
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.<ref>[https://community.icann.org/display/WHO/WHOIS+Review+Implementation+Home?preview=/54691767/66082444/WHOIS%20Quarterly%20Summary%2031December2016.pdf WHOIS Review - Implementation Report], December 2016</ref> <ref name="dashboard" ICANN.org - RDS1 Dashboard]</ref>
==Background==
The [[Affirmation of Commitments]], an agreement between ICANN and the [[United States Department of Commerce]], establishes ICANN's obligations to perform its duties with specific commitments in mind. All of the commitments bear on public and consumer trust of the organization. ICANN is to perform its functions in a manner that:
*ensures accountability and transparency of decision-making;
*preserves the security, stability, and resiliency of the DNS;
*promotes competition, consumer trust, and consumer choice; and
*enables access to registration data.
ICANN is also charged to periodically review and assess its performance through the lens of each of the above commitments.<ref>[https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/affirmation-of-commitments-2009-09-30-en ICANN.org - Affirmation of Commitments], September 30, 2009</ref>
ICANN's board enshrined these commitments (and the associated reviews) in its [[ICANN Bylaws|Bylaws]] in Article 1 (Mission, Commitments, and Core Values)<ref>[https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/governance/bylaws-en/#article1 ICANN Bylaws, Article 1]</ref> and in Article 4 (Accountability and Review).<ref>[https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/governance/bylaws-en/#article4 ICANN Bylaws, Article 4]</ref> Article 4.6 deals with "Specific Reviews," each of which are tied to one of the commitments in the Affirmation of Commitments.<ref>[https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/governance/bylaws-en/#article4.6 ICANN Bylaws, Article 4.6]</ref>
The [[Organizational Effectiveness Committee]] of the board oversees the conduct of specific reviews.<ref>[https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/organizational-effectiveness-committee-2014-03-21-en ICANN.org - Organizational Effectiveness Committee]</ref> 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."<ref>[https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/affirmation-of-commitments-2009-09-30-en ICANN.org - Affirmation of Commitments],</ref>
==Initiating Steps==
An initial call for volunteers was issued on June 1, 2010.<ref name="dashboard" /> To assist in selection and recruitment, the GNSO, ALAC, and SSAC all submitted screening requirements for volunteer applicants.<ref>[https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/soac-requirements-a4-2012-02-25-en ICANN.org - SO/AC Requirements for RDS1], June 1, 2010</ref>
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.<ref>[https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/call-for-experts-law-enforcement-2012-02-25-en ICANN.org - Call for Experts], July 26, 2010</ref>
==Process and Findings==
The review team's planning process identified three topic areas for inquiry and research:
#Clarity of WHOIS Policy;
#Existing laws, privacy issues, and the use of anonymized or proxy WHOIS information; and
#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.<ref>[https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/discussion-paper-09jun11-en.pdf RDS1 - Terms of Reference], June 8, 2010</ref>
The review team created subteams to contextualize and investigate these issues and the specific questions raised in the Terms of Reference document.<ref>[https://community.icann.org/display/WHO/Subteams RDS1 Workspace - Subteams]</ref> In addition, the review team issued an RFP for research into consumer trust in WHOIS.<ref>[https://www.icann.org/en/announcements/details/request-for-proposals-for-whois-consumer-trust-research--deadline-for-applications-25-july-2011-10-7-2011-en ICANN.org - Request for Proposals], July 10, 2011</ref> [[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.<ref>[https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/final-report-appendix-methodology-outreach-11may12-en.pdf RDS1 Final Report], Appendix, Methodology and Outreach, May 11, 2012</ref>
The collected findings of the RDS1 team, along with recommendations for improvement, were submitted in a draft report on December 5, 2011.<ref>[https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/draft-final-report-05dec11-en.pdf RDS1 Draft Final Report], December 5, 2011 (PDF)</ref> Thirty-five comments were submitted, including a large number of individual comments.<ref>[https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/summary-comments-whois-rt-draft-final-report-03apr12-en.pdf Summary Report of Public Comment Proceeding], April 3, 2012</ref> [[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.<ref>[https://archive.icann.org/en/meetings/costarica2012/full-schedule.html ICANN 43 - Full Schedule]</ref>
==Final Report and Implementation==
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<ref name="finalrep">[https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/final-report-11may12-en.pdf RDS1 Final Report], May 11, 2012</ref> 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 Name|internationalized]] domain names.
==Background==
The [[Affirmation of Commitments]], an agreement between ICANN and the [[United States Department of Commerce]], establishes ICANN's obligations to perform its duties with specific commitments in mind. All of the commitments bear on public and consumer trust of the organization. ICANN is to perform its functions in a manner that:
*ensures accountability and transparency of decision-making;
*preserves the security, stability, and resiliency of the DNS;
*promotes competition, consumer trust, and consumer choice; and
*enables access to registration data.
ICANN is also charged to periodically review and assess its performance through the lens of each of the above commitments.<ref>[https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/affirmation-of-commitments-2009-09-30-en ICANN.org - Affirmation of Commitments], September 30, 2009</ref>
ICANN's board enshrined these commitments (and the associated reviews) in its [[ICANN Bylaws|Bylaws]] in Article 1 (Mission, Commitments, and Core Values)<ref>[https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/governance/bylaws-en/#article1 ICANN Bylaws, Article 1]</ref> and in Article 4 (Accountability and Review).<ref>[https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/governance/bylaws-en/#article4 ICANN Bylaws, Article 4]</ref> Article 4.6 deals with "Specific Reviews," each of which are tied to one of the commitments in the Affirmation of Commitments.<ref>[https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/governance/bylaws-en/#article4.6 ICANN Bylaws, Article 4.6]</ref>
The [[Organizational Effectiveness Committee]] of the board oversees the conduct of specific reviews.<ref>[https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/organizational-effectiveness-committee-2014-03-21-en ICANN.org - Organizational Effectiveness Committee]</ref> 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."<ref>[https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/affirmation-of-commitments-2009-09-30-en ICANN.org - Affirmation of Commitments],</ref>
==Initiating Steps==
An initial call for volunteers was issued on June 1, 2010.<ref name="dashboard" /> To assist in selection and recruitment, the GNSO, ALAC, and SSAC all submitted screening requirements for volunteer applicants.<ref>[https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/soac-requirements-a4-2012-02-25-en ICANN.org - SO/AC Requirements for RDS1], June 1, 2010</ref>
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.<ref>[https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/call-for-experts-law-enforcement-2012-02-25-en ICANN.org - Call for Experts], July 26, 2010</ref>
==Process and Findings==
The review team's planning process identified three topic areas for inquiry and research:
#Clarity of WHOIS Policy;
#Existing laws, privacy issues, and the use of anonymized or proxy WHOIS information; and
#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.<ref>[https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/discussion-paper-09jun11-en.pdf RDS1 - Terms of Reference], June 8, 2010</ref>
The review team created subteams to contextualize and investigate these issues and the specific questions raised in the Terms of Reference document.<ref>[https://community.icann.org/display/WHO/Subteams RDS1 Workspace - Subteams]</ref> In addition, the review team issued an RFP for research into consumer trust in WHOIS.<ref>[https://www.icann.org/en/announcements/details/request-for-proposals-for-whois-consumer-trust-research--deadline-for-applications-25-july-2011-10-7-2011-en ICANN.org - Request for Proposals], July 10, 2011</ref> [[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.<ref>[https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/final-report-appendix-methodology-outreach-11may12-en.pdf RDS1 Final Report], Appendix, Methodology and Outreach, May 11, 2012</ref>
The collected findings of the RDS1 team, along with recommendations for improvement, were submitted in a draft report on December 5, 2011.<ref>[https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/draft-final-report-05dec11-en.pdf RDS1 Draft Final Report], December 5, 2011 (PDF)</ref> Thirty-five comments were submitted, including a large number of individual comments.<ref>[https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/summary-comments-whois-rt-draft-final-report-03apr12-en.pdf Summary Report of Public Comment Proceeding], April 3, 2012</ref> [[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.<ref>[https://archive.icann.org/en/meetings/costarica2012/full-schedule.html ICANN 43 - Full Schedule]</ref>
==Final Report and Implementation==
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<ref name="finalrep">[https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/final-report-11may12-en.pdf RDS1 Final Report], May 11, 2012</ref> 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 Name|internationalized]] domain names.