RDS-WHOIS2 Implementation - Status of 15 Recommendations

Complete  (11 recs.)

Recommendations 1.1, 1.2, 1.3; 10.2, 12.1, 11.215.1LE.1, LE.2, SG.1, CC.3

In progress  (4 recs.)

Recommendations 3.1, 3.2, CC.1, CC.2

Not started  (0 rec.)


N E W S  /  U P D A T E S

  • Recommendation CC.1 moves to in progress. (January 2024)
  • Recommendations 10.2, 12.1 and SG.1 move to complete. (January 2024)

FEB 24


Progress by Quarter


APR 2022

JUN 2022

SEPT 2022

DEC 22Q4 2022

MAR 23Q1 2023

JUNE 23Q2 2023

SEPT 23Q3 2023

DEC 23

FEB 24

Complete3778888811
In progress622223334
Not Started666554440

Rec #

Implementation Status

Priority level assigned by the community

(where P1 corresponds to the highest priority and P4 to the lowest - see here for more information)

Description

Notes


R1.1

Complete

n/a

To ensure that RDS (WHOIS) is treated as a strategic priority, the ICANN Board should put into place a forward-looking mechanism to monitor possible impacts on the RDS (WHOIS) from legislative and policy developments around the world.

See implementation documentation.

R1.2

Complete

n/a

To support this mechanism, the ICANN Board should instruct the ICANN org to assign responsibility for monitoring legislative and policy developments around the world and to provide regular updates to the ICANN Board.

See implementation documentation.

R1.3

Complete

P4

The ICANN Board, in drafting the charter of a Board working group on RDS, should ensure the necessary transparency of the group's work, such as providing records of meetings and meeting minutes, to enable future review of its activities.

See implementation documentation.

R3.1

In progress

P4

The ICANN Board should direct ICANN org to update all of the information related to RDS (WHOIS) and by implication other information related to the registration of second-level gTLDs. The content should be revised to make the information readily accessible and understandable, and it should provide details of when and how to interact with ICANN org or contracted parties. [...]

N/A

R3.2

In progress

Eligible for prioritization

With community input, the ICANN Board should instruct ICANN org to identify groups outside of those that routinely engage with ICANN org, and these should be targeted through RDS (WHOIS) outreach. An RDS (WHOIS) outreach plan should then be developed, executed, and documented. [...]

N/A

R10.2

Complete

N/A

Reviewing the effectiveness of the implementation of WHOIS1 Recommendation 10 should be deferred. The ICANN Board should recommend that review be carried out by the next RDS (WHOIS) Review Team after the Privacy and Proxy Services Accreditation Issues (PPSAI) policy is implemented.

Implementation documentation in progress.

R11.2

Complete

P4

The ICANN Board should direct ICANN org to ensure that the common interface displays all applicable output for each gTLD domain name registration as available from contracted parties, including multiple versions when the outputs from registry and registrar differ. The common interface should be updated to address any policy or contractual changes to maintain full functionality.

See implementation documentation.

R12.1

Complete

N/A

Reviewing the effectiveness of the implementation of Recs #12-14 should be deferred. The ICANN Board should recommend that review to be carried out by the next RDS Review Team after RDAP is implemented, and the translation and transliteration of the registration data launches.

Implementation documentation in progress.

R15.1

Complete

P4

The ICANN Board should ensure that implementation of RDS-WHOIS2 Review Team recommendations is based on best practice project management methodology, ensuring that plans and implementation reports clearly address progress, and applicable metrics and tracking tools are used for effectiveness and impact evaluation.

See implementation documentation.

LE.1

Complete

P4

The ICANN Board should resolve that ICANN org conduct regular data gathering through surveys and studies to inform a future assessment of the effectiveness of RDS (WHOIS) in meeting the needs of law enforcement. This will also aid future policy development (including the current Temporary Specification for gTLD Registration Data Expedited Policy Development Process and related efforts).

See implementation documentation.

LE.2

Complete

P4

The ICANN Board should consider conducting comparable surveys and/or studies (as described in LE.1) with other RDS (WHOIS) users working with law enforcement on a regular basis.

See implementation documentation.

SG.1

Complete

P2

The ICANN Board should require that the ICANN org, in consultation with data security and privacy expert(s), ensure that all contracts with contracted parties (to include Privacy/Proxy services when such contracts exist) include uniform and strong requirements for the protection of registrant data and for ICANN to be notified in the event of any data breach. The data security expert(s) should also consider and advise on what level or magnitude of breach warrants such notification. [...]

Implementation documentation in progress.

CC.1

In progress

P4

The ICANN Board should initiate action intended to ensure that gTLD domain names suspended due to RDS (WHOIS) contact data which the registrar knows to be incorrect, and that remains incorrect until the registration is due for deletion, should be treated as follows: (1) The RDS (WHOIS) record should include a notation that the domain name is suspended due to incorrect data; and (2) Domain names with this notation should not be unsuspended without correcting the data.

N/A

CC.2

In progress

Not eligible for prioritization

The ICANN Board should initiate action intended to ensure that all gTLD domain name registration directory entries contain at least one full set of either registrant or admin contact details comparable to those required for new registrations under the 2013 Registrar Accreditation Agreement (RAA) (or any subsequent version thereof) or applicable policies.

N/A

CC.3

Complete

n/a

The ICANN Board should take steps to ensure that ICANN Contractual Compliance is adequately resourced factoring in any increase in work due to additional work required due to compliance with GDPR or other legislation/regulation.

See implementation documentation.