AT-LARGE GATEWAY

At-Large Website

ALAC

RALOs

At-Large Regional Policy Engagement Program (ARPEP)

At-Large Governance

At-Large Reports

Policy Comments & Advice

Working Groups

ICANN Meetings

At-Large Summit (ATLAS III)

At-Large Review Implementation Plan Development

ALAC and RALO Elections, Selections, and Appointments

At-Large FY25 Strategic Priority Activities

Please note that this workspace will be used to gather the At-Large's topics for the Public Forum during the Toronto Meeting.

The deadline for comments is 19-September-2012 at 23:59 UTC.

Please note that the call for comments below has been extended until 2-October-2012 23:59 UTC.

  • No labels

7 Comments

  1. Holly Raiche

    Is this the place to ask what the Board has done to implement the recommendations of the Whois Final Final Report that do not need a PDP to be acted upon.

    1. Olivier Crepin-Leblond

      It is not the place for questions, but for suggesting topics. So you might ask that the subject of WHOIS be one of the discussion topics of the public forum in Toronto.

  2. Holly Raiche

    Taking Olivier's advice, the recommendations from the Whois Final Final report should be a topic.  Specifically, we should ask what the Board has done to implement the 12 recommenations ALAC has identified as ones that can be acted upon without needing a PDP process first.

  3. Holly Raiche

    I would like to modify my question  in light of the SSAC 055 report (thanks to Sala for bringing it to the list's attention).  I have copied out some of the executive summary of the report for those who may not have read it.

    So the question we should  be asking the Board is whether/when they will establish a high level committee to develop a Whois policy along the lines recommended by SSAC055 - the three questions at the end. (the SSAC report says  the high level policy committee does not have to be headed by the CEO but must be high level and all inclusive - that's us!)  Quoting from the report:

    The SSAC believes that there is a critical need for a policy defining the purpose of collecting and maintaining registration data. This policy should address the operational concerns of the parties who collect, maintain or use this data as it relates to ICANN’s remit. The policy should address at least the following questions:
    Why are data collected?

    • What purpose will the data serve?   
    •  Who collects the data?  
    • Where is the data stored and how long is it stored?
    • Where is the data escrowed and how long is it escrowed?
    • Who needs the data and why?
    • Who needs access to logs of access to the data and why?

    The SSAC believes that a single consensus policy answering at least the questions listed above is achievable and the essential first step toward any “solution” to “the problem.” It is within ICANN’s remit to work collaboratively with the community to retroactively establish this policy.


    The SSAC believes that the formation of a properly authorized committee to drive solutions to these questions first, and to then derive a universal policy from the answers, is the appropriate sequence of steps to address the WHOIS Review Team’s report.


    The SSAC recommendation to the ICANN Board of Directors is therefore succinct:

    1. The Board should pass a resolution clearly stating the criticality of the development of a registration data policy defining the purpose of domain name registration data, and
    2. The Board should direct the CEO to create a registration data policy committee that includes the highest levels of executive engagement to develop a registration data policy that defines the purpose of domain name registration data, as described elsewhere in this document; and
    3. The Board should explicitly defer any other activity (within ICANN’s remit) directed at finding a “solution” to “the WHOIS problem” until the registration data policy identified in (1) and (2) has been developed and accepted by the community.

    1. Olivier Crepin-Leblond

      Holly – this might be a statement that one might wish to make  in front of the Board but it is not a subject header of topics we'd like to bring to the public forum.

  4. Evan Leibovitch

    I oppose the artificial segmentation of the public forum into subject areas which are then allotted arbitrary time limits. If issues come up during the meeting that don't neatly fit into the "official" topic there must be a method of accommodation. I deplore the stage-management of something that should be a creation and function of the needs of the community, and need not be pre-filtered into silos.

    If the Public Forum was more interactive and actually generated discussion and feedback, there would be more point to grouping common public comments by general subject. But since the PF is mainly just a parade of monologues, there is no need for such management at all.

    If there is an insistence upon broad subject categories and a belief that the Forum cannot exist without structure, I would suggest, then:

    1. Objections and reserved names in the new gTLDs
    2. Accountability versus privacy in collection and availability of registrant data

    The former can be used to address URS and UDRP and law-enforcement takedown issues as well as protections for non-trademarked names (such as the Red Cross) and other TLD objection-related issues. The latter can be used to speak about Compliance, WHOIS and SSAC055, the balance between privacy, public accountability and law enforcement needs.

    1. Olivier Crepin-Leblond

      Excellent suggestions Evan – and I think that encompasses Holly's suggestions for WHOIS above.