Atallah encourages domainers to get involved in ICANN

ICANN Global Domains Division chief Akram Atallah today encouraged domain investors to participate more in the ICANN community.
“Domain investors’ voices need to be heard in ICANN,” he said during brief remarks opening NamesCon Europe here in Valencia this morning.
“Your voices are as important as everyone else’s and should be heard,” he said.
He noted to the largely European crowd here that ICANN has a public meeting coming up in Barcelona toward the end of the year.
The call came within the context of comments that focused almost exclusively on GDPR and Whois.
Atallah said that the absence of Whois would make it difficult to track down bad guys and harder for the average person to ensure that the information they get online comes from a reputable source.
“Not everything on the internet is true,” he said, to an faux-incredulous “WHAT?!?” from a member of the audience. “You need to know who is behind this information.”
He said that ICANN hopes to keep Whois as transparent as possible, and played up the fact that most community members are now in agreement that a tiered access system seems like the best way forward, which he called a “major shift from 12 months ago, when the community could not agree on anything”.
He added that now that the Article 29 Working Party has been replaced by the European Data Protection Board, it could help ICANN figure out how to proceed on GDPR compliance efforts.
“I think we’ll get more clarity,” he said.
Disclosure: I’m at NamesCon on my own dime, but with a complementary complemintary complimentary press pass.

US asks if it should take back control over ICANN

The US government has asked the public whether it should reverse its 2016 action to relinquish oversight of the domain name system root.
“Should the IANA Stewardship Transition be unwound? If yes, why and how? If not, why not?”
That’s the surprisingly direct question posed, among many others, in a notice of inquiry (pdf) issued yesterday by the National Telecommunications and Information Administration.
The inquiry “is seeking comments and recommendations from all interested stakeholders on its international internet policy priorities for 2018 and beyond”. The deadline for comments is July 2.
The IANA transition, which happened in September 2016, saw the NTIA remove itself from the minor part it played, alongside meatier roles for ICANN and Verisign, in the old triumvirate of DNS root overseers.
At the handover, ICANN baked many of its previous promises to the US government into its bylaws instead, and handed oversight of itself over to the so-called Empowered Community, made up of internet stakeholders of all stripes.
The fact that the question is being asked at all would have been surprising not too long ago, but new NTIA chief David Redl and Secretary of Commerce Wilbur Ross expressed their willingness to look into a reversal as recently as January.
Back then Redl told Congresspeople, in response to questions raised primarily by Senator Ted Cruz during his confirmation process:

I am not aware of any specific proposals to reverse the IANA transition, but I am interested in exploring ways to achieve this goal. To that end, if I am confirmed I will recommend to Secretary Ross that we begin the process by convening a panel of experts to investigate options for unwinding the transition.

Cruz had objected to the transition largely based on his stated (albeit mistaken or disingenuous) belief that it gave China, Iran and a plethora of bad guys control over Americans’ freedom of speech, something that has manifestly failed to materialize.
But in the meantime another big issue has arisen — GDPR, the EU’s General Data Protection Regulation — which is in the process of eroding access rights to Whois data, beloved of US law enforcement and intellectual property interests.
NTIA is known to be strongly in favor of retaining access to this data to the greatest extent possible.
The notice of inquiry does not mention Whois or GDPR directly but it does ask several arguably related questions:

A. What are the challenges to the free flow of information online?
B. Which foreign laws and policies restrict the free flow of information online? What is the impact on U.S. companies and users in general?
C. Have courts in other countries issued internet-related judgments that apply national laws to the global internet? What have been the practical effects on U.S. companies of such judgements? What have the effects been on users?

NTIA’s statement announcing the inquiry prominently says that the agency is “working on” items such as “protecting the availability of WHOIS information”.
It also says it “has been a strong advocate for the multistakeholder approach to Internet governance and policy development”.
While GPDR and Whois are plainly high-priority concerns for NTIA, it’s beyond my ken how reversing the IANA transition would help at all.
GDPR is not ICANN policy, after all. It’s a European Union law that applies to all companies doing business in Europe.
Even if the US were to fully nationalize ICANN tomorrow and rewrite Whois policy to mandate the death penalty for any contracted party that refused to openly publish full Whois records, that would not make GDPR go away, it would probably just kick off a privacy trade war or mean that all US contracted parties would have to stop doing business in Europe.
That sounds like an extreme scenario, but Trump.
The NTIA’s inquiry closes July 2, so if you think the transition was a terrible idea or a wonderful idea, this is where to comment.

Court denies ICANN’s GDPR injunction against Tucows

A German court has refused ICANN’s request for a GDPR-related injunction against Tucows’ local subsidiary EPAG, throwing a key prong of ICANN’s new Whois policy into chaos.
EPAG now appears to be free to stop collecting contact information for each domain’s administrative and technical contacts — the standard Admin-C and Tech-C fields.
The ruling may even leave the door open for registrars to delete this data from their existing Whois databases, a huge blow to ICANN’s Whois compliance strategy.
According to an ICANN-provided English translation of the ruling (pdf), the Bonn judges (whose names are redacted — another win for GDPR?) decided that the Admin-C and Tech-C records are unnecessary, because they can be (and usually are) the same person as the registrant.
The judges said that if the additional contact names were needed, it would have historically been a condition of registration that three separate people’s data was required.
They wrote that this “is proof that any data beyond the domain holder — different from him — was not previously necessary”.
“Against the background of the principle of data minimization, the Chamber is unable to see why further data sets are needed in addition to the main person responsible,” they wrote.
Data minimization is a core principle of GDPR, the General Data Protection Regulation, which came into force in the EU less than a week ago. Tucows and ICANN have different interpretations on how it should be implemented.
The judges said that the registrant’s contact information should be sufficient for any criminal or security-related investigations, which had been one of ICANN’s key claims.
They also said that ICANN’s attempt to compare Whois to public trademark databases was irrelevant, as no international treaties govern Whois.
If the ruling stands, it means registries and registrar in at least Germany could no longer have to collect Admin-C and Tech-C contacts.
Tucows had also planned to delete this data for its existing EPAG registrations, but had put its plan on hold ahead of the judge’s ruling.
The ruling also gives added weight to the part of ICANN’s registry and registrar agreements that require contracted parties to abide by local laws.
That’s at the expense of the new Temporary Policy governing Whois introduced two weeks ago, which still requires Admin-C and Tech-C data collection.
There was no word in ICANN’s statement on the ruling last night as to the possibility of appealing.
But the org seized on the fact that the ruling does not directly state that EPAG would be breaching GDPR rules by collecting the data. General counsel John Jeffrey is quoted as saying:

While ICANN appreciates the prompt attention the Court paid to this matter, the Court’s ruling today did not provide the clarity that ICANN was seeking when it initiated the injunction proceedings. ICANN is continuing to pursue the ongoing discussions with the European Commission, and WP29 [the Article 29 Working Party], to gain further clarification of the GDPR as it relates to the integrity of WHOIS services.

Tucows has yet to issue a statement on the decision.
It may not be the last time ICANN resorts to the courts in order to seek clarity on matters related to GDPR and its new Temporary Policy.

Million-euro Tucows GDPR lawsuit may not be ICANN’s last

ICANN has filed a lawsuit against a Tucows subsidiary in Germany in an effort to resolve a disagreement about how new European privacy law should be interpreted, and according to ICANN’s top lawyer it may not be the last.
The organization said late Friday that it is taking local registrar EPAG to court in Bonn, asking that the registrar be forced to continue collecting administrative and technical contact information for its Whois database.
According to an English translation of the motion (pdf), and to conversations DI had with ICANN general counsel John Jeffrey and Global Domains Division president Akram Atallah over the weekend, ICANN also wants an injunction preventing Tucows from deleting these fields from current Whois records.
At its core is a disagreement about how the new General Data Protection Regulation should be interpreted.
Tucows plans to continue collecting the registrant’s personal information, but it sees no reason why it should also collect the Admin-C and Tech-C data.
Policy director Graeme Bunton argues that in the vast majority of cases the three records are identical, and in the cases they are not, the registrar has no direct contractual relationship with the named individuals and therefore no business storing their data.
ICANN counters that Admin-C and Tech-C are vital when domain owners need to be contacted about issues such as transfers or cyber-attacks and that the public interest demands such records are kept.
Its new Temporary Policy — which is now a binding contractual commitment on all registries and registrars — requires all this data to be collected, but Tucows feels complying with the policy would force it to break European law.
“Strategically, we wanted to make sure we don’t let the Whois and the pubic interest get harmed in a way that can’t be repaired,” Atallah said.
“The injunction is to actually stop any registrar from not collecting all the data and therefore providing the opportunity for the multistakeholder model to work and come up with a long-term plan for Whois,” he said. “”We don’t want to have a gap.”
Jeffrey said that the suit was also necessary because ICANN has not received sufficient GDPR guidance from data protection authorities in the EU.
EPAG is not the only registrar planning to make the controversial changes to data collection. There are at least two others, at least one of which is based in Germany, according to Jeffrey and Atallah.
The German ccTLD registry, DENIC, is not under ICANN contract but has also said it will no longer collect Admin-C and Tech-C data.
They may have all taken their lead from the playbook (pdf) of German industry group eco, which has been telling ICANN since at least January that admin and tech contacts should no longer be collected under GDPR.
That said, Tucows chief Elliot Noss is a vocal privacy advocate, so I’m not sure how much leading was required. Tucows was also a co-developer (pdf) of the eco model.
The injunction application was filed the same day GDPR came into effect, after eleventh-hour talks between ICANN legal and Tucows leadership including chief legal officer Bret Fausett hit an impasse.
Tucows has agreed to freeze its plan to delete its existing Admin-C and Tech-C stored data, however.
The suit has a nominal million-euro value attached, but I’m convinced ICANN (despite its budget crunch) is not interested in the money here.
It’s my sense that this may not be the last time we see ICANN sue in order to bring clarity to GDPR.
Recently, Jeffrey said that ICANN would not tolerate contracted parties refusing to collect full Whois data, and also that it would not tolerate it when they decline to hand the data over to parties with legitimate interests.
The German lawsuit does not address this second category of non-compliance.
But it seems almost certain to me that intellectual lawyers are just days or weeks away from starting to file compliance tickets with ICANN when they are refused access to this data, which could lead to additional litigation.
“Whether it would result in a lawsuit is yet to be determined,” Jeffrey told DI yesterday. “The normal course would be a compliance action. If people aren’t able to gain access to information they believe that they have a legitimate right to access they will file compliance complaints. Those compliance complaints will be evaluated.”
“If it’s a systematic decision not to provide that access, that would violate the [Temporary Policy],” he said. “If they indicated it was because of their interpretation of the law, then it could result in us asking questions of the DPAs or going to court if that’s the only action available.”
The injunction application is a “one-sided filing”, which Jeffrey tells me is a feature of German law that means the court could issue a ruling without requiring EPAG/Tucows to appear in court or even formally respond.
The dispute therefore could be resolved rather quickly — this week even — by the court of first instance, Jeffrey said, or it could be bounced up to the European Court of Justice.
Given how new GDPR is, and considering the wider implications, the latter option seems like a real possibility.

How all 33 European ccTLDs are handling GDPR

Happy GDPR Day everyone!
Today’s the day that the European Union’s not-quite-long-enough-awaited General Data Protection Regulation comes into effect, giving registries and registrars the world over the prospect of scary fines if they don’t keep their registrants’ Whois data private.
So I thought today would be the perfect day to summarize what each EU or European Economic Area ccTLD has said they are doing about GDPR as it pertains to Whois.
There are 33 such ccTLDs, arguably, and I’ve checked the public statements and web sites of each to hit the key changes they’ve announced.
Because ccTLDs are not governed by ICANN contracts, they had to figure out GDPR compliance for themselves (though some did take note of ICANN guidance).
So I’ve found there are differing interpretations of key points such as whether it’s kosher to continue to publish contact email addresses, and where the line between “natural persons” (ie humans) and “legal persons” (ie companies and other organizations) should be drawn.
Some have also been quite specific about when they will release private data to third parties with so-called “legitimate purposes”; others are more vague.
Note that some of the 33 do not appear to have published anything about GDPR. It’s possible this is because they didn’t need to make any changes. It’s also possible that I simply could not find the information because I’m rubbish.
I should also note that I did the majority of this research yesterday, so additional statements may have been made in the meantime.
Anyway, here’s the list, in alphabetical order.
Austria (.at)
In Austria, from last week public Whois records only show the domain name and technical information when the domain is owned by natural persons. Company-owned domains are unchanged. Any registrant can opt in to having their data published. Only verified “law enforcement agencies, lawyers or people who contact nic.at following domain disputes and who can prove that their rights have been infringed” are allowed to access full records.
Belgium (.be)
DNS.be has not been publishing personal info of natural person registrants, other than their email address, since 2000. As of last week, email addresses are not being published either. It’s also removed the contact name (though not the organization) for domains owned by legal persons. A web form is available to contact anonymized registrants.
Bulgaria (.bg)
There’s not currently any information on the registry web site to indicate any GDPR-related changes, at least in English, that I could find.
Croatia (.hr)
No info on GDPR to be found here either.
Cyprus (.cy)
Ditto.
Czechia/Czech Republic (.cz)
Nic.cz has new rules (pdf) coming in tomorrow that specify which Whois fields will or may be “hidden”, but the English version of the document is too confusing for me to follow. It appears as if plenty of contact information will be masked, and that the registry will only make it available to those who contact it directly with a good enough reason (and it may charge for access). It may also release historical records to those with legitimate purposes.
Denmark (.dk)
Remarkably, there will be NO CHANGE to Whois in .dk after tomorrow, according to an article published on the registry’s web site today. DIFO, the registry, is subject to a Danish law that makes publication of Whois mandatory so, the company said, “we will continue to publish the information – for the benefit of those who need to know who is behind a given domain name. Regardless of whether it is because you want to protect your brand, investigate a crime, do research or just satisfy your curiosity.” Wow!
European Union (.eu)
Eurid’s current Whois policy (pdf) states that only the email address of natural persons will be published publicly. Registrants get the option from their registrars to have this address anonymized. Private data can be released to those who show they have a legitimate interest in accessing it.
Estonia (.ee)
The Estonian Internet Foundation Council approved its GDPR changes (pdf) back in March. They say that no personal information on natural persons will be published, though it appears there will be a way to get in contact with them via the registry itself.
Finland (.fi)
The Finnish registry, FICORA, is a governmental entity that has published remarkably little about GDPR on its site. Its Whois shows the name of the registrant, even when they’re a natural person. Registrants can also opt in to reveal more information about themselves.
France (.fr)
Afnic didn’t have to do much to comply with RGPD (tut!) as it has been hiding the personal info of natural-person registrants since it started allowing them to register .fr names back in 2006. Likewise, it already has a procedure to enable the likes of trademark owners to get their hands on contact info in the event of a dispute, which involves filling out a form (pdf) and promising to only use the data acquired for the purposes specified.
Germany (.de)
DENIC, Europe’s largest ccTLD registry said a few months back that it would expunge personal data from its public Whois and implement a semi-automated system for requesting full records. It’s also adding two “non-personalized” contact email addresses for general and technical inquiries, which will be managed by the registrar in question.
Greece (.gr)
I couldn’t find any GDPR-related information on the registry web site, but its Whois appears to not output contact details for any registrant anyway.
Hungary (.hu)
Currently outputs “private registrant” as the registrant’s name when they’re a natural person, along with a technical contact email and no other personal information. Legal persons get their full contact info published. It’s not entirely clear how recent this policy is.
Iceland (.is)
Iceland’s ISNIC is one of the ccTLD registries to announce that it will continue to publish registrants’ email addresses, though no other contact info, until it is told to stop. In a somewhat defiant post last month, the registry said that GDPR as applied to Whois “will lead to less transparency in domain registrations and less trust in the domain registration system in general”.
Ireland (.ie)
IEDR will not publish contact information for any registrant, though it will publish their name if they’re a legal person. It will only disclose personal information to law enforcement, under court order, for technical matters, or to help a dispute resolution partner resolve a cybersquatting claim.
Italy (.it)
The current version of Registro.it’s Whois policy, dated September 2016, says it will publish all contact information over port 43 and a subset of some contact info (including phone and email) over the web query tool. There’s no mention I could find on its site of GDPR-related changes, though its 2016 policy acknowledges some might be needed.
Latvia (.lv)
Under its post-GDPR policy (pdf), Nic.lv will not publish any personal info about natural persons in its public Whois, and only law enforcement and the government can request the records. Legal-person registrants continue to have their full contact data published.
Liechtenstein (.li)
Liechtenstein is managed by Switzerland’s SWITCH and appears to have the same policies.
Lithuania (.lt)
DomReg’s new privacy policy (pdf) gives natural persons an opt-in to have their personal data published, but otherwise it will all be private. There’s an email-forwarding option. Lawyers with claims against registrants can pay the registry for the Whois record if the registrant has not responded to their forwarded emails within 15 days.
Luxembourg (.lu)
.lu registry RESTENA Foundation said it will cut all personal information for natural-person registrants and make a web-based form available for contact purposes. There will be an opt-in for those who want their data published at a later date. Legal persons continue to have their data published. The registry will make current and historical records available for those with legit purposes, and will create automated blanket access system for national authorities that require regular access.
Malta (.mt)
NIC(Malta)’s current Whois policy, which is only six months old, allows any registrant to opt out of having their personal data published in Whois, but appears to require than a “Administrative Agent” be appointed to take their place in the public database. There’s no info on its web site about any upcoming changes due to GDPR.
Netherlands (.nl)
SIDN explains in a recent paper (pdf) that it didn’t have to make many changes to its Whois service because personal information was already pretty much redacted. The biggest change appears to be more throttling of Whois queries applied to registrars when they’re querying domains they don’t already sponsor.
Norway (.no)
Norid said this week that it will publish the email address of private individual registrants, and full contact info for companies. It’s also the only European ccTLD I’m aware of to have a third class of registrant, the sole proprietorship, which will also see their organization names and numbers published. There does not appear to be an in-house email anonymization or forwarding service, for which Norid encourages registrants to look elsewhere.
Poland (.pl)
NASK has no GDPR related info on its web site, but its evidently quite old Whois policy states that the private information of individuals is not published.
Portugal (.pt)
DNS.pt has a comprehensive set of documents on its site explaining its pre- and post-GDPR policies. From today, natural-person registrants are given the option to provide their “informed, willing, and express consent” to having their data published. If they don’t give consent, it will be redacted from public records and email addresses may be replaced with an anonymized address. This is not available to legal entities. ARBITRARE, a local arbitration center tasked with handle IP disputes, will be able to have access to full records.
Romania (.ro)
RoTLD said yesterday that it would no longer publish private information of individuals, but that it may release such data to “carefully verified” third parties with legitimate interests. It also encouraged registrants to use non-personally-indentifying email addresses if they wish to have a further degree of privacy.
Slovakia (.sk)
SKNIC, now owned by UK-based CentralNic, has an interesting definition of the type of natural person you have to be to have your data protected — a “natural person non-enterpreneur” — according to its helpfully redlined policy update (pdf), suggesting that offering commercial services might void your right to natural-person status. (UPDATE: SKNIC tells me that “natural person–entrepreneur is a legal definition of a specific version of legal person” in Slovakia). There’s a carve-out that allows the registry to provide private data to third parties with legal claims, or to its cybersquatting dispute handler.
Slovenia (.si)
Register.si said this week that it will shortly publish its post-GDPR privacy policy, but it does not appear to have yet done so.
Spain (.es)
I could find no GDPR-related information on the Dominios.es site.
Sweden (.se)
IIS has not published the private fields of Whois records for natural persons since 2013. From today, it will also redact the contact name and email address from the records of legal-person registrants, as it may be considered “personal” data under the law.
Switzerland (.ch)
I don’t think GDPR actually applies to Switzerland, which is not an EEA member, but the .ch registry, SWITCH, also runs Liechtenstein’s .li, so I’m including it here. SWITCH says on both of its sites that it is required by Swiss law to publish Whois records, though they’re subject to an acceptable use policy that includes throttling. When I attempted to do a single Whois query via the SWITCH site today I was told I had already exceeded my quota. Shrug.
United Kingdom (.uk)
UK registry Nominet has long had a two-tier Whois, where private individuals do not have their contact information published in the public Whois. But as of this week it has started redacting all registrant contact information. It’s also going to be offering a paid-for searchable Whois service and a free data request service with a one-day turnaround.

After outcry, ICANNWiki to get ICANN funding next year

ICANNWiki will continue to get funding from its namesake, after community members complained about ICANN’s plan to abandon its $100,000 annual grant.
The independent wiki project will get $66,000 instead in the year beginning July 1, which will drop to $33,000 in ICANN’s fiscal 2020.
The funding will then disappear completely.
It’s a slight reprieve for ICANNWiki, which uses the money not only for its 6,000-article web site but also in-person outreach at events around the world.
The organization had complained about the plans to drop funding back in December, and fans of the site later called on ICANN to change its mind.
Supporters say the site fulfills a vital educational service to the ICANN community.
ICANNWiki also receives over $60,000 a year from corporate sponsors.
ICANN has also offered a reprieve to its Fellowship program in the new draft budget, reducing the number of people accepted into the program by fewer than expected.
It said in January it would slash the program in half, from 60 people per meeting to 30. That number will now drop to 45, at a cost of $151,000.
As discussed in this February article, the community has differing opinions about whether the program is an important way to on-board volunteers into ICANN’s esoteric world, or a way for freeloaders to vacation in exotic locations around the globe.

ICANN slashes new gTLD income forecast AGAIN

ICANN has yet again been forced to lower its funding expectations from new gTLDs, as the industry continues to face growth challenges.
In its latest draft fiscal year 2019 budget, likely to be approved at the end of the month, it’s cut $1.7 million from the amount it expects to receive in new gTLD transaction fees.
That’s even after cutting its estimates for fiscal 2018 in half just a few months back.
New gTLD registry transaction fees — the $0.25 collected whenever a new gTLD domain is registered, renewed or transferred, provided that the gTLD has over 50,000 domains under management — are now estimated at $5.1 million for FY19
That’s up just $500,000 from where it expects FY18, which ends June 30 this year, to finish off.
But it’s down $900,000 or 15% from the $6 million in transaction fees it was forecasting just four months ago.
It’s also still a huge way off the $8.7 million ICANN had predicted for FY18 in March 2017.
Registrar new gTLD transaction fees for FY19, paid by registrars regardless of the size of the TLD, are now estimated to come in at $4.3 million, up $400,000 from the expect FY18 year-end sum.
But, again, that number is down $800,000 from the $5.1 million in registrar fees that ICANN was forecasting in its first-draft FY19 budget.
In short, even when it was slashing its FY18 expectations in half, it was still over-confident on FY19.
On the bright side, at least ICANN is predicting some growth in new gTLD transactions.
And the story is almost exactly reversed when it comes to pre-2012 gTLDs.
For legacy gTLD registry transaction fees — the majority of which are paid by Verisign for .com and .net — ICANN has upped its expectations for FY19 to $49.6 million, compared to its January estimate of $48.7 million (another $900,000 difference, but in the opposite direction).
That growth will be offset by lower growth at the registrar level, where transaction fees for legacy gTLDs are now expected to be $30.2 million for FY19, compared to its January estimate of $30.4 million, a $200,000 deficit.
None of ICANN’s estimates for FY18 transaction fees have changed since the previous budget draft.
But ICANN has also slashed its expectation in terms of fixed fees from new gTLD registries — the $25,000 a year they all must pay regardless of volume.
The org now expects to end FY18 with 1,218 registries paying fees and for that to creep up slightly to 1,221 by the end of FY19.
Back in January, it was hoping to have 1,228 and 1,231 at those milestones respectively.
Basically, it’s decided that 10 TLDs it expected to start paying fees this year actually won’t, and that they won’t next year either. These fixed fees kick in when TLDs are delegated and stop when the contract is terminated.
It now expects registry fixed fees (legacy and new) of $30.5 million for FY19, down from expected $30.6 million for FY18 and and down from its January prediction of $31.1 million.
ICANN’s budget documents can be downloaded here.

ICANN board talking GDPR “litigation”

ICANN’s board of directors is meeting today to discuss its “litigation strategy” concerning the General Data Protection Regulation, the EU privacy legislation due to make Whois unrecognizable come Friday.
Those two words are basically the only item on its agenda for a special board meeting today.
I’ve been unable to squeeze any further information out of ICANN, but I can speculate about a few different things it could mean.
The first thing that springs to mind is a blog post by CEO Goran Marby dated April 12, in which he wrote:

Without a moratorium on enforcement, WHOIS will become fragmented and we must take steps to mitigate this issue. As such, we are studying all available remedies, including legal action in Europe to clarify our ability to continue to properly coordinate this important global information resource. We will provide more information in the coming days.

To my knowledge, no additional information on this “legal action in Europe” has ever been released.
Could ICANN be ready to take a data protection authority to court preemptively, as a test case to insulate the industry against enforcement action from DPAs? Your guess is as good as mine at this stage.
Another possibility, still in speculative territory, is that the board will be discussing the many calls from the industry for some kind of legal or financial indemnification against GDPR-related regulatory actions. I’d assign a relatively low probability to that idea.
A third notion that springs to mind, slightly more realistically, is that the board could simply be discussing how ICANN would defend itself from incoming litigation related to its GDPR response.
It usually takes ICANN a few days to post the results of its board meetings, but on important hot topics it’s not hugely unusual to see same-day publication.

ICANN approves messy, unfinished Whois policy

With a week left on the GDPR compliance clock, ICANN has formally approved a new Whois policy that will hit all gTLD registries and registrars next Friday.
The Temporary Specification for gTLD Registration Data represents the first time in its history ICANN has invoked contractual clauses that allow it to create binding policy in a top-down fashion, eschewing the usual community processes.
The policy, ICANN acknowledges, is not finished and needs some work. I would argue that it’s also still sufficiently vague that implementation in the wild is likely to be patchy.
What’s in public Whois?
The policy is clearest, and mostly unchanged compared to previous drafts, when it comes to describing which data may be published in public Whois and which data must be redacted.
If you do a Whois query on a gTLD domain from next week, you will no longer see the name, address, phone/fax number or email address of the registrant, admin or tech contacts.
You will continue to see the registrant’s organization, if there is one, and the country in which they are based, as well as some information about the registrar and name servers.
In future, public RDAP-based Whois databases will have to output “REDACTED FOR PRIVACY” in these fields, but for now they can just be blank.
While the GDPR is only designed to protect the privacy of humans, rather than companies, and only those connected to the European Union, the ICANN policy generally assumes that all registrants will be treated the same.
It will be possible for any registrant to opt out of having their data redacted, if being contactable is more important to them than their privacy.
What about privacy services?
Since the May 14 draft policy, ICANN has added a carve-out for domains that are already registered using commercial privacy/proxy services.
Whois records for those domains are NOT going to change under the new policy, which now has the text:

in the case of a domain name registration where a privacy/proxy service used (e.g. where data associated with a natural person is masked), Registrar MUST return in response to any query full WHOIS data, including the existing proxy/proxy pseudonymized email.

In the near term, this will presumably require registries/registrars to keep track of known privacy services. ICANN is working on a privacy/proxy accreditation program, but it’s not yet live.
So how do you contact registrants?
The policy begins to get more complicated when it addresses the ability to actually contact registrants.
In place of the registrant’s email address in public Whois, registries/registrars will now have to publish an anonymized email address or link to a web-based contact form.
Neither one of these options should be especially complex to implement — mail forwarding is a staple service at most registrars — but they will take time and effort to put in place.
ICANN indicated earlier this week that it may give contracted parties some breathing room to get this part of the policy done.
Who gets to see the private data?
The policy begins to fall apart when it describes granting access to full, unexpurgated, thick Whois records to third parties.
It seems to do a fairly good job of specifying that known quantities such as URS/UDRP providers, escrow providers, law enforcement, and ICANN itself continue to get access.
But it’s fuzzier when it comes to entities that really would like to continue to access Whois data, such as trademark lawyers, security service providers and consumer protection concerns.
While ICANN is adamant that third parties with “legitimate interests” should get access, the new policy does not enumerate with any specificity who these third parties are and the mechanism(s) contracted parties must use to grant such access.
This is what the policy says:

Registrar and Registry Operator MUST provide reasonable access to Personal Data in Registration Data to third parties on the basis of a legitimate interests pursued by the third party, except where such interests are overridden by the interests or fundamental rights and freedoms of the Registered Name Holder or data subject

This appears to give contracted parties the responsibility to make legal judgment calls — balancing the GDPR-based privacy rights of the registrant against the “legitimate interests” of the requester — every time they get a thick Whois request.
The policy goes on to say that when European privacy regulators, the courts, or other legislation or regulation has specifically approved a certain class of requester, ICANN will relay this news to the industry and it will have 90 days to make sure that class gets full Whois access.
But the policy does not specify any formal mechanism by which anyone goes about requesting a thick record.
Do they just phone up the registrar and ask? Does the registrar have to publish a contact address for this purpose? How does the registrar go about confirming the requester is who they say they are? Should they keep white-lists of approved requesters, or approve each request on a domain-by-domain basis? When does the right of a trademark owner outweigh the privacy right of an individual?
None of these questions are answered by the policy, but in a non-binding annex ICANN points to ongoing community work to create an “accreditation and access model”.
That work appears to be progressing at a fair rapid clip, but I suspect that’s largely because the trademarks lawyers are holding the pens and discussions are not following ICANN’s usual consensus-building policy development rules.
When the work is absorbed into the ICANN process, we could be looking at a year or more before something gets finalized.
How will transfers work?
Because Whois is used during the inter-registrar transfer process, ICANN has also had to tweak its Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy to take account of instances where registrars can’t access each other’s databases.
Basically, it’s scrapping the requirement for gaining registrars to obtain a Form of Authorization from the Whois-listed registrant before they start an inbound transfer.
This will remove one hoop registrants have to jump through when they switch registrars (though losing registrars still have to obtain an FOA from them) at the cost of making it marginally easier for domain theft to occur.
What happens next?
ICANN acknowledges, in seven bullet points appended to the policy, that the community has more work to do, mainly on the access/accreditation program.
Its board resolution “acknowledges that there are other implementation items that require further community conversation and that the Board encourages the community to resolve as quickly as possible”.
The board has also asked ICANN staff to produce more explanatory materials covering the policy.
It also temporarily called off its Governmental Advisory Committee consultation, which I wrote about here, after receiving a letter from the GAC.
But the big next step is turning this Temporary Policy into an actual Consensus Policy.
The Temporary Policy mechanism, which has never been used before, is set up such that it has to be renewed by the board every 90 days, up to a maximum of one year.
This gives the GNSO until May 25 next year to complete a formal Policy Development Process. In fact, it will be a so-called “Expedited” PDP or EPDP, that cuts out some of the usual community outreach in order to provide a speedier result.
This, too, will be an unprecedented test of an ICANN policy-making mechanism.
The GNSO will have the Temporary Policy baseline to work from, but the Temporary Policy is also subject to board-level changes so the goalposts may move while the game is being played.
It’s going to be a big old challenge, and no mistake.

Three reasons ICANN could swing the GDPR ban hammer on day one

While ICANN reckons it will act “reasonably” when it comes to enforcing compliance with its incoming GDPR emergency policy, there are some things it simply will not tolerate.
The policy expected to be approved tomorrow and immediately incorporated by reference into registry and registrar contracts, is a little light on expected implementation timetables, so this week ICANN has been pressured for clarity.
Will Compliance start firing off breach notices on May 26, the day after GDPR comes into effect, if the industry has not immediately implemented every aspect of the new policy?
Attendees at the Global Domains Division Summit in Vancouver managed to get some answers out of general counsel John Jeffrey at a session yesterday.
First off, if you’re a registrar planning to stop collecting registrants’ personal information for Whois, ICANN will not be happy, and you could be looking at a Compliance ticket.
Jeffrey said:

We don’t want any of the contracted parties to stop collecting the data. ICANN is confident that you can continue to collect the data. We will stand in front of you on it, if we can. Do not stop collecting the data. We believe we have a very strong, important point. We hear from the governments that were involved in passing this legislation that it’s important it continues to be collected.

Second, you have to have a mechanism in place for people with “legitimate purposes” to access thick Whois records that contain all the juicy personal information.
Jeffrey said:

We also believe it’s important there’s a need to continue to display information that will be behind that second tier. And we can demonstrate the need to do that as well. This is really important.

And if there was any doubt remaining, he added:

We will enforce on the temporary spec, if it’s approved, if you stop collecting data, or if you don’t provide any mechanism to allow access to it. It’s a very serious concern.

The problem right now is that the Temporary Policy (pdf), still in draft, doesn’t have a whole heck of lot of detail about who should be allowed such access and the mechanisms to enable it.
It says:

Personal Data included in Registration Data may be Processed on the basis of a legitimate interest not overridden by the fundamental rights and freedoms of individuals whose Personal Data is included in Registration Data

It goes on to list circumstances where access may be given and types of parties that may need access, but it seems to me to still give registries and registrars quite a lot of responsibility to decide how to balance privacy rights and the “legitimate” data requests.
Those two scenarios — not collecting data and not making it available to those who need it — seem to be the big two zero tolerance areas for ICANN.
Other issues, such as replacing the registrant’s email address in the thin Whois output, also appear to be a pressing concern.
Jeffrey said, noting that providing a way to contact registrants is important for myriad reasons, including UDRP:

Creating the anonymized emails or web forms is another really important aspect but we understand some won’t be able to have that in place immediately.

How long after GDPR Day ICANN starts swinging the ban hammer over the email issue seems to be something ICANN is still thinking about.
That said, Jeffrey said that the organization intends to act “as reasonably as possible”.