Latest news of the domain name industry

Recent Posts

First chance to have your say on the future of Whois

Kevin Murphy, November 23, 2018, 13:26:09 (UTC), Domain Policy

RIP: the Whois Admin.
Standard Whois output is set to get slimmed down further under newly published policy proposals.
The community working group looking at post-GDPR Whois has decided that the Admin Contact is no longer necessary, so it’s likely to get scrapped next year.
This is among several recommendations of the Expedited Policy Development Process working group on Whois, which published its initial report for public comment late Wednesday.
As expected, the report stops short of addressing the key question of how third-parties such as intellectual property interests, domain investors, security researchers and the media could get streamlined access to private Whois data.
Indeed, despite over 5,000 person-hours of teleconferences and face-to-face meetings and about 1,000 mailing list messages since work began in early August, the EPDP’s 50 members have yet to reach consensus on many areas of debate.
What they have reached is “tentative agreement” on 22 recommendations on how to bring current ICANN Whois policy into line with EU privacy law, the General Data Protection Regulation.
The work is designed to replace the current Temporary Specification, a Band-Aid imposed by the ICANN board of directors, which is due to expire next May.
The EPDP initial report proposes a few significant changes to what data is collected and publicly displayed by the Whois system.
The most notable change is the complete elimination of the Admin Contact fields.
Currently, Whois contains contact information for the registrant, admin contact and technical contact. It’s often the same data replicated across all three records, and under the Temp Spec the large majority of the data is redacted.
Under the EPDP’s proposal, the Admin Contact is superfluous and should be abandoned altogether. Not only would it not be displayed, but registrars would not even collect the data.
The Tech Contact is also getting a haircut. Registrars would now only be able to collect name, phone and email address, and it would be optional for the registrant whether to provide this data at all. In any event, all three fields would be redacted from public Whois output.
For the registrant, all contact information except state/province and country would be redacted.
There’s no agreement yet on whether the optional “organization” field would be redacted, but the group has agreed that registrars should provide better guidance to registrants about whether they need to provide that data.
While data on legal persons such as companies is not protected by GDPR, some fear that natural person registrants may just naively type their own name into that box when registering a name, inadvertently revealing their identities to the public.
Those providing Whois output would be obliged, as they are under the Temp Spec, to publish an anonymized email address or web-based contact form to allow users to contact registrants without personal information being disclosed.
That German lawsuit
The recommendation to slash what data is collected could have an impact on ICANN’s lawsuit against Tucows’ German subsidiary, EPAG.
ICANN is suing EPAG after the registrar decided that collecting admin and tech contact info was not compliant with GPDR. It’s been looking, unsuccessfully, for a ruling forcing the company to carry on collecting this data.
Tucows is of the view that if the admin and tech contacts are third parties to the registration agreement, it has no right to collect data about them under the GDPR.
If ICANN’s own community policy development process is siding with Tucows, this could guide ICANN’s future legal strategy, but not, it appears, until it becomes firm consensus policy.
I asked ICANN general counsel John Jeffrey about whether the EPDP’s work could affect the lawsuit during an interview October 5, shortly after it became clear that the admin/tech contact days might be numbered.
“Maybe,” he said. “If it becomes part of the policy we’ll have to assess that. Until there’s a new policy though, what we’re working with is the Temp Spec. The Temp Spec we believe is enforceable, we believe have the legal support for that, and we’ll continue down that path.”
(It might be worth noting that Thomas Rickert, whose law firm represents EPAG in this case, is on the EPDP working group in his capacity of head of domains for German trade group eco. He is, of course, just one of the 31 EPDP members developing these recommendations at any given time.)
IP wheel-spinning
The main reason it’s taken the EPDP so long to reach the initial report stage — the report was originally due during the ICANN 63 Barcelona meeting a month ago — has been the incessant bickering between those advocating for, and opposing, the rights of intellectual property interests to access private Whois data.
EPDP members from the IP Constituency and Business Constituency have been attempting to future-proof the work by getting as many references to IP issues inserted into the recommendations as they can, before the group has turned its attention to addressing them specifically.
But they’ve been opposed every step of the way by the Non-Commercial Stakeholders Group, which is concerned the IP lobby is trying to policy its way around GDPR as it relates to Whois.
Many hours have been consumed by these often-heated debates.
My feeling is that the NCSG has been generally winning, but probably mainly because the working group’s charter forbade discussion about access until other issues had been addressed.
As it stands today, the initial report contains this language in Recommendation #2:

Per the EPDP Team Charter, the EPDP Team is committed to considering a system for Standardized Access to non-public Registration Data once the gating questions in the charter have been answered. This will include addressing questions such as:
• What are the legitimate purposes for third parties to access registration data?
• What are the eligibility criteria for access to non-public Registration data?
• Do those parties/groups consist of different types of third-party requestors?
• What data elements should each user/party have access to?
In this context, amongst others, disclosure in the course of intellectual property infringement and DNS abuse cases will be considered

This is basically a placeholder to assure the IP crowd that their wishes are still on the table for future debate — which I don’t think was ever in any doubt — but even this basic recommendation took hours to agree to.
The EPDP’s final report is due February 1, so it has just 70 days to discuss this hypothetical “Standardized Access” model. That’s assuming it started talks today, which it hasn’t.
It’s just nine weeks if we assume not a lot is going to happen over the Christmas/New Year week (most of the working group come from countries that celebrate these holidays).
For context, it’s taken the working group about 115 days just to get to the position it is in today.
Even if Standardized Access was the only issue being discussed — and it’s not, the group is also simultaneously going to be considering the public comment on its initial report, for starters — this is an absurdly aggressive deadline.
I feel fairly confident in predicting that, come February 1, there will be no agreement on a Standardized Access framework, at least not one that would be close to implementable.
Have your say
All 22 recommendations, along with a long list of questions, have now been put out for public comment.
The working group is keen to point out that all comments should provide rationales, and consider whether what they’re asking for would be GDPR-compliant, so comments along the lines of “Waaah! Whois should be open!” will likely be rapidly filed to the recycle bin.
It’s a big ask, considering that most people have just a slim grasp of what GDPR compliance actually means.
Complicating matters, ICANN is testing out a new way to process public comments this time around.
Instead of sending comments in by email, which has been the norm for two decades, a nine-page Google form has been created. This is intended to make it easier to link comments to specific recommendations. There’s also a Word version of the form that can be emailed.
Given the time constraints, it seems like an odd moment to be testing out new processes, but perhaps it will streamline things as hoped. We’ll see.

Tagged: , , , , , , ,

Comments (7)

  1. Dan K. says:

    Domainers are the spammers who we try to protect our data from in the first place. Who send dozens of emails once you register a domain. And if they want to sell a domain they can just point the domain to a marketplace or a website instead, so all interested people can find them.
    And the media’s sole purpose is invading the privacy of others and publishing information on them.
    Those are really the last parties who I’d like to see having access to the whois.

    • JZ says:

      You must have domainers mixed up with seo and logo people. They are the big spammers. I own tens of thousands of domains public who is on all and I might get 2-3 emails a week at most from people selling domains..

  2. Amr E. says:

    Hey Kevin, thanks for the well-written post. I’d like to make a clarification, which I hope will be helpful:
    “The EPDP’s final report is due February 1, so it has just 70 days to discuss this hypothetical “Standardized Access” model. That’s assuming it started talks today, which it hasn’t.”
    Recommendations concerning the access model are not actually required to be provided before the February 2018 deadline. In other words, an access model is not required to replace the temporary specification. Although discussions on the access model might very well begin before February, the final report published following the now open public comment period isn’t actually expected to include recommendations on an access model. It’ll be covered in subsequent reports, with another public comment period for a second initial report, second final report, etc…

    • Kevin Murphy says:

      Thanks Amr.
      As lovely as your opinion is, it is a NCSG opinion.

      • Amr E. says:

        Opinion on the post being well-written? 🙂
        In case that isn’t what you meant, that wasn’t an opinion, but don’t take my word for it. Check the transcripts of the very first EPDP Team call on 1 August. The issue of whether an access model being finalized would be necessary to replace the temp spec was briefly discussed at that time.

  3. Holo says:

    Over 35% of new Domains are being used for Phishing, Counterfeiting goods and Malware delivery and we will now afford the perpetrators even more protection from prosecution? It takes long enough to gather evidence, looks like we are going to be living in the Wild West…

Add Your Comment