PUBLICCOMMENTCLOSE
2016-12-12 12:00:00.0 UTC
STATEMENTNAME
<p><a href="https://www.icann.org/public-comments/rdds-labeling-display-2016-10-21-en">Revised Proposed Implementation of GNSO Thick Whois Consensus Policy Requiring Consistent Labeling and Display of RDDS (Whois) Output for All gTLDs</a></p>
STATEMENTSTATUS
<p>No Statement</p>
STATEMENTASSIGNEE
<p>n/a</p>
STAFFCONTACT
<div class="contact-info"><span class="contact-name">Krista Papac</span></div><div class="contact-info"><span class="contact-name"> </span><a href="mailto:krista.papac@icann.org">krista.papac@icann.org</a></div>
STATEMENTNUMBER
<p>n/a</p>
PUBLICCOMMENTINFO
<ul><li style="margin-left: 1rem;"><a href="https://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-rdds-output-20oct16">Comments Forum</a></li></ul><h2>Brief Overview</h2><div class="EmbeddedHTML"><p><strong><em>Purpose:</em></strong> This public comment proceeding seeks input from the community on the proposed revised Registry Registration Data Directory Services Consistent Labeling and Display Policy (“Policy”). The proposed revisions to the Policy address community feedback on the requirement in the Policy for registries to implement a Registration Data Access <abbr title="Protocol">Protocol</abbr> (RDAP) service in order to achieve consistent labeling and display of registration data. This requirement has been removed from the version of the proposed Policy being posted for comment.</p><p><strong><em>Current Status:</em></strong> The Policy Implementation Review Team and <abbr title="Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers">ICANN</abbr> have developed a revised version of the Policy. Provision 12 of the Policy, published on 26 July 2016, states: “<em>The implementation of an RDAP service in accordance with the "</em><a href="https://www.icann.org/rdap-gtld-profile"><em>RDAP Operational Profile for <abbr title="generic Top Level Domain">gTLD</abbr>Registries and Registrars</em></a><em>" is required for all <abbr title="generic Top Level Domain">gTLD</abbr> registries in order to achieve consistent labeling and display.”</em></p><p>In August 2016, the Registry Stakeholder Group (<abbr title="Registries Stakeholder Group">RySG</abbr>) submitted a <a href="https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/reconsideration-16-10-rysg-request-2016-08-11-en">Request for Reconsideration</a> regarding the recently published CL&D Policy. The <abbr title="Registries Stakeholder Group">RySG</abbr> asserted that the scope of the Policy was improperly expanded to include requirement for registiries to implement RDAP.</p><p><strong><em>Next Steps:</em></strong> <abbr title="Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers">ICANN</abbr> will prepare a Public Comment Summary and Analysis Report at the conclusion of the comment period. <abbr title="Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers">ICANN</abbr> will review the comments received in collaboration with the Implementation Review Team (<abbr title="Implementation Recommendation Team (of new gTLDs)">IRT</abbr>) to determine whether any changes need to be made to the revised proposed implementation as a result of the input received.</p><p>Separately, <abbr title="Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers">ICANN</abbr> intends to request that registries implement RDAP pursuant to the terms of their registry agreements.</p></div><div /><div /><h2>Section I: Description, Explanation, and Purpose</h2><div class="EmbeddedHTML"><p>On 7 February 2014, the <abbr title="Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers">ICANN</abbr> Board adopted <abbr title="Generic Names Supporting Organization">GNSO</abbr> consensus policy recommendations regarding the use of “thick” Whois by all <abbr title="generic Top Level Domain">gTLD</abbr> registries. In consultation with the <abbr title="Generic Names Supporting Organization">GNSO</abbr>Implementation Review Team (<abbr title="Implementation Recommendation Team (of new gTLDs)">IRT</abbr>), which was formed as directed by the <abbr title="Generic Names Supporting Organization">GNSO</abbr> Council to work with <abbr title="Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers">ICANN</abbr> staff to ensure that the resultant implementation fulfills the intentions of the approved policy recommendations, <abbr title="Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers">ICANN</abbr> staff has identified two expected outcomes in the <abbr title="Policy Development Process">PDP</abbr>recommendations:</p><ul style="margin-left: 20px;"><li>The consistent labeling and display of Whois output for all gTLDs (originating from Recommendation #1)</li><li>The transition from thick to thick for .COM, .NET and .JOBS (originating from Recommendations #1 and Recommendation #3)</li></ul><p>In order to guide the implementation of Recommendation #1, <abbr title="Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers">ICANN</abbr> in collaboration with the <abbr title="Implementation Recommendation Team (of new gTLDs)">IRT</abbr>took the following steps:</p><ul style="margin-left: 20px;"><li>Conducted an <a href="https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/52889541/ThickWhois-CL%26D-Impact-v2.pdf?version=1&modificationDate=1448472412030&api=v2">Impact Assessment</a> and <a href="https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/52889541/ThickWhois-CL%26D-Impact-Detailed%20v2.xlsx?version=1&modificationDate=1448475758183&api=v2">Detailed Analysis</a> of the Consistent Labeling and Display requirement for all gTLDs</li><li>Proposed a synchronized implementation of this requirement with the roll out of <a href="https://www.icann.org/public-comments/rdap-profile-2015-12-03-en">RDAP</a> in order to minimize impact on affected parties by allowing potential economies of scale in development efforts</li><li>Proposed a phased approach to the implementation in order to synchronize implementation with work ongoing at the <abbr title="Internet Engineering Task Force">IETF</abbr> on EPP Extensions that are necessary for part of this implementation</li><li>Created a Draft Thick RDDS (Whois) <abbr title="Consensus">Consensus</abbr> Policy and relevant Implementation Notes, which address implementation of the consistent labeling and display outcome.</li></ul><p>On 3 December 2015, <abbr title="Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers">ICANN</abbr> posted the <a href="https://www.icann.org/public-comments/rdds-output-2015-12-03-en">Proposed Implementation of <abbr title="Generic Names Supporting Organization">GNSO</abbr> Thick Whois <abbr title="Consensus">Consensus</abbr> Policy Requiring Consistent Labeling and Display of RDDS (Whois) Output for All gTLDs</a> for public comment. Based on the comments received, <abbr title="Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers">ICANN</abbr> published the <a href="https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/rdds-labeling-policy-2016-07-26-en">Registry Registration Data Directory Services Consistent Labeling and Display Policy</a> (“Policy”) on 26 July 2016 and notified registries of the effective date to implement the Policy.</p><p>On 9 August 2016, the Registry Stakeholder Group (<abbr title="Registries Stakeholder Group">RySG</abbr>) submitted a <a href="https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/reconsideration-16-10-rysg-request-2016-08-11-en">Request for Reconsideration</a> regarding the Policy, objecting to the inclusion of RDAP as part of the <abbr title="Consensus">Consensus</abbr> Policy. The <abbr title="Registries Stakeholder Group">RySG</abbr> asserted that the scope of the Policy was improperly expanded to include requirement for registiries to implement RDAP.</p><p><abbr title="Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers">ICANN</abbr> worked with the Implementation Review Team to address this matter, and <abbr title="Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers">ICANN</abbr> is now posting a draft <a href="https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/proposed-revised-registry-rdds-consistent-labeling-and-display-policy-21oct16-en.pdf">revised CL&D Policy</a> [PDF, 168 KB] for public comment. The revised draft proposes to delete provision 12, which states that, “<em>The implementation of an RDAP service in accordance with the "</em><a href="https://www.icann.org/rdap-gtld-profile"><em>RDAP Operational Profile for <abbr title="generic Top Level Domain">gTLD</abbr> Registries and Registrars</em></a><em>" is required for all <abbr title="generic Top Level Domain">gTLD</abbr> registries in order to achieve consistent labeling and display</em>”.</p><p><abbr title="Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers">ICANN</abbr> intends to request that registries implement RDAP pursuant to the terms of their registry agreements.</p></div><h2>Section II: Background</h2><div class="EmbeddedHTML"><p><abbr title="Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers">ICANN</abbr> specifies Whois service requirements through Registry Agreements (RAs) and the Registrar Accreditation Agreement (<abbr title="Registrar Accreditation Agreement">RAA</abbr>) for the generic top-level domain (<abbr title="generic Top Level Domain">gTLD</abbr>) registries. Registries have historically satisfied their Whois obligations under two different models. The two models are often characterized as “thin” and “thick” Whois registries.</p><p>This distinction is based on how two distinct sets of data are maintained. <abbr title="WHOIS (pronounced "who is"; not an acronym)">WHOIS</abbr> contains two kinds of data about a domain name:</p><ul style="margin-left: 20px;"><li>one set of data is associated with the domain name itself (e.g., the sponsoring registrar, status of the registration, creation and expiration dates for each registration, name server data, the last time the record was updated in the Registry database, and the <abbr title="Uniform Resource Locator">URL</abbr> for the registrar’s Whois service),</li><li>a second set of data that is associated with the registrant and other contacts of the domain name.</li></ul><p>In a thin registration model the Registry only collects the information associated with the domain name from the Registrar. The Registry in turn publishes that information along with maintaining certain status information at the Registry level. Registrars maintain data associated with the registrant of the domain and provide it via their own Whois services, as required by Section 3.3 of the <abbr title="Registrar Accreditation Agreement">RAA</abbr> for those domains they sponsor.</p><p>In a thick registration model the Registry collects both sets of data (domain name and registrant) from the Registrar and in turn publishes that data via Whois.</p></div><h2>Section III: Relevant Resources</h2><div class="EmbeddedHTML"><ul style="margin-left: 20px;"><li><a href="https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/rdds-labeling-policy-2016-07-26-en">Registry Registration Data Directory Services Consistent Labeling & Display Policy</a>(Rescinded implementation documents posted on 26 July 2016)</li><li><a href="https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/reconsideration-16-10-rysg-request-2016-08-11-en">Request for Reconsideration</a> submitted by <abbr title="Registries Stakeholder Group">RySG</abbr> on 9 August 2016</li><li><a href="https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/proposed-revised-registry-rdds-consistent-labeling-and-display-policy-21oct16-en.pdf">Proposed Revised Registry Registration Data Directory Services Consistent Labeling and Display Policy</a> [PDF, 168 KB]</li></ul></div><h2>Section IV: Additional Information</h2><div class="EmbeddedHTML" /><h2>Section V: Reports</h2><div class="EmbeddedHTML" /><h2>Staff Contact</h2><div class="contact"><div class="contact-info"><span class="contact-name">Krista Papac</span></div><div class="contact-email"><a href="mailto:krista.papac@icann.org">krista.papac@icann.org</a></div></div>
FINALVERSION
FINALDRAFT
FIRSTDRAFT