Versions Compared


  • This line was added.
  • This line was removed.
  • Formatting was changed.
Comment: Migrated to Confluence 4.0

Comment Period

Important Information Links

Open Date:

5 December 2011

Close Date:

18 March 2012

Time (UTC):


Originating Organization:

WHOIS Policy Review Team

<ac:structured-macro ac:name="unmigrated-wiki-markup" ac:schema-version="1" ac:macro-id="7a32d0c6-fe77-4f41-bc60-b448cfaf2740"><ac:plain-text-body><![CDATA[


The WHOIS Policy Review Team, constituted under ICANN's Affirmation of Commitments with the U.S. Department of Commerce, publishes its [Draft Report and Recommendations] [PDF, 1.04 KB] for public comment.

In addition to general comments and feedback, the Review Team seeks comment on the following issues:

  • Acceptable timeframes for ICANN to implement the Review Team's recommendations;
  • Particular ICANN departments, staff or supporting organizations which ought to be tasked with particular recommendations, with some explanation;
  • Input on all Recommendations, including Recommendation 17 in which two variations of scope are presented for the "common interface" recommendation;
  • Input on effective and efficient mechanisms for monitoring ICANN's progress in implementing the final Recommendations between completion of this Report and start of the next WHOIS Policy Review Team; and
  • Additional input and notes.

Current Status:

Draft report for public comment

Next Steps:

Final Report and Recommendations to be published by 30 April 2012.

Staff Contact:

Olof Nordling


This Draft of the ALAC Statement on the WHOIS RT Report was prepared by Carlton Samuels.


It cannot be right for a national law or set of national laws to be deemed as superseding all other considerations. And while there is a time-honoured tradition that parties to a contract may choose the legal jurisdiction to which they will submit for binding claims and judgments, we hardly think it useful in this 'one-to-many' relationship of common-pool resources for a claim of suzerainty of any particular national law or, set of laws.  It is not unknown for members of a community to cede certain rights to be a part of a community.  The Internet remaining as a global commons is worthy.  And so we believe in extant case that it is not only politic but right for members of this global community to devise binding WHOIS rules and expect due respect for them from external parties, including governments.

Wiki MarkupThe At-Large is properly mindful of claims to privacy for one or other purpose and willingly accede accommodation for such claims, so long as these do not degrade the ability of any user to effectively seek redress of grievance. &nbsp;Truth be  Truth be known, what we have are persons, both natural and legal and for whatever reason, wishing to be on the commons but not of the commons. &nbsp;First First, we cannot concede that commercial entities should prevail on any claim of a right to privacy.&nbsp;   But we would wish to err on the side of caution and acknowledge that for perfectly reasonable political purposes, anonymity is sometimes good and necessary; we concede common cause and vouchsafe the anonymity of the \ [political\] pamphleteer. This aside, we hold that redress begins with knowing who is liable and, where to find them, all relevant protocols observed.

In this context, we should care less whether privacy rights or claims are connected to a natural person or a corporation. In our view, the defining matter/ issue inre the proxy relationship is an acceptance and adoption of certain rules. The ALAC accepts the RAA as fit and proper for enshrining WHOIS requirements.  The ALAC further recommends that WHOIS proxies be regularized and privacy registrations accommodated so long as: a) the proxy provider acts on the expressed actual authority of the registrant b) the proxy provider accepts strict liability for the registrant on whose behalf it acts.