Child abuse becoming big problem for new gTLDs

There were 3,791 domain names used to host child sexual abuse imagery in 2017, up 57%, according to the latest annual report from the Internet Watch Foundation.
While .com was the by far the worst TLD for such material in terms of URLs, over a quarter of the domains were registered in new gTLDs.
Abuse imagery was found on 78,589 URLs on 3,791 domains in 152 TLDs, the IWF said in its report.
.com accounted for 39,937 of these URLs, a little over half of the total, with .net, .org, .ru and .co also in the top five TLDs. Together they accounted for 85% of all the abuse URLs found. The 2016 top five TLDs included .se, .io and .cc.
New gTLDs accounted for a small portion of the abuse URLs — just over 5,000, up 221% on 2016 — but a disproportionate number of domains.
The number of new gTLD domains used for abuse content was 1,063, spread over 50 new gTLDs. Equivalent numbers were not available in the 2016 report and IWF does not break down which TLDs were most-abused.
According to Verisign’s Q4 Domain Name Industry Brief (pdf), new gTLDs account for just 6.2% of all existing domain names, and yet they account for over 28% of the domains where IWF found child abuse imagery.
IWF said that the increasing number of domains registered to host abuse imagery can be linked to what it calls “disguised websites”.
These are sites “where the child sexual abuse imagery will only be revealed to someone who has followed a pre-set digital pathway — to anyone else, they will be shown legal content.”
Presumably this means that registries and registrars spot-checking domains they have under management could be unaware of their true intended use.

Now GNSO mulls emergency response to GDPR deadline

ICANN’s GNSO Council is thinking about deploying a never-before-used emergency mechanism to develop a Whois privacy policy in response to GDPR.
With the May 25 deadline for compliance with the EU’s General Data Protection Regulation fast approaching, the community is scrambling to figure out how it can bring ICANN’s policies and therefore its contracts into line with the Draconian privacy provisions of the new law.
Currently, ICANN contracts with registries and registrars demand the publication of full Whois records, something GDPR will not permit, so each company in the industry is busily figuring out how its own Whois database will comply.
Fearful of a “fragmented” Whois, ICANN’s board of directors is considering deploying its own top-down emergency measure — called a Temporary Policy in its contracts — to ensure uniformity across its contracts.
CEO Goran Marby revealed to DI earlier this month that a Temporary Policy was being considered, and he and other members of the board confirmed as much to GNSO leadership during a telephone briefing last week.
(It should be noted that the call took place prior to the receipt last week of guidance from the EU Article 29 Working Party, which prompted ICANN to start mulling legal options as one way to buy the industry some time to comply post-May.)
The call (recorded here with password Eur3wiEK and summarized in this letter (pdf)), focused almost exclusively on how the Council could respond to a board-mandated Temporary Policy, with the board suggesting a GNSO Expedited Policy Development Process might be the best way to proceed.
A Temporary Policy would expire within a year, so the GNSO would have to come up with a formal Consensus Policy within that time-frame if ICANN were to have any hope of having a uniform view of Whois across its contracts.
The Temporary Policy is a “strong option” for the board, and a “highly likely or likely” outcome, but nothing has been formally decided, the GNSO leaders heard from ICANN vice-chair Chris Disspain. He was briefly challenged by Marby, who appeared somewhat more committed to the move.
While the GNSO Council has not yet formally decided to deploy the EPDP, it appears to be the most-feasible option to meet the deadline a Temporary Policy would impose.
It is estimated that an EPDP could take as little as 360 days, compared to the estimated 849 days of a regular PDP.
The EPDP cuts out several of the initial steps of a regular PDP — mainly the need for an Initial Report and associated public comment period — which by my reading would shorten the process by at least 100 days.
It also seems to give the GNSO some wriggle room in how the actual policy creation takes place. It appears that the regular “working group” structure could be replaced, for example, with a “drafting team”.
If the EPDP has the Temporary Policy and WP29 guidance as its baseline for discussions, that could also help cut out some of the circular argument that usually characterizes Whois discussions.
Aware that the EPDP is a strong possibility, the Council is currently planning to give itself a crash course in the process, which has never been used before by any iteration of the Council.
It’s uncharted territory for both the GNSO and the ICANN board, and the only people who seem to have a firm grasp on how the two emergency mechanisms slot together are the ICANN staffers who are paid to know such things.
UPDATE: A couple of hours after this article was published, ICANN posted this three-page flow-chart (pdf) comparing EPDP to PDP. Lots of luck.

Panic stations as Europe plays hardball on Whois privacy

Hopes that Whois records will continue to be available to broad sections of the internet community appeared dashed this week as European data protection heads ripped holes in ICANN’s plan for the industry to comply with the General Data Protection Regulation.
ICANN CEO Goran Marby warned that Whois faces imminent fragmentation and expressed disappointment that authorities have basically ignored his repeated requests for a moratorium on GDPR enforcement.
The Article 29 Working Party, made up of the heads of data protection authorities of EU member states, told ICANN this week that its so-called “Cookbook” compliance plan is nowhere near detailed enough.
In a letter (pdf), it also strongly hinted that intellectual property interests have little hope of retaining access to Whois contact information after GDPR comes into effect next month.
Any notion that WP29 might tell ICANN that the Cookbook was an over-reaction to GDPR, eschewing too many data elements from public records, was firmly put to bed.
Instead, the group explicitly supported ICANN’s plan to replace email addresses in the public Whois with anonymized addresses or a web-based registrant contact form.
It said it “welcomes the proposal to significantly reduce the types of personal data that shall be made publically [sic] available, as well as its proposal [to] introduce alternative methods to contact registrants”.
It also approved of the plan for a “layered” access plan, under which some entities — law enforcement in particular — would be able to access private contact information under an accreditation program.
But WP29 pooh-poohed the idea, put forward by some in the trademark community, that access to Whois could be restricted merely with the use of an IP address white-list.
It warned that the purposes for such access should be explicitly defined and said that what can be accessed should be tightly controlled.
WP29 does not appear to be a fan of anyone, even accredited users, getting bulk access to private Whois data.
While the group endorsed the idea that law enforcement agencies should be able to access Whois, it failed to provide similar comfort to IP interests, security researchers and other groups with self-declared “legitimate interests” in the data.
In what I’m reading as a veiled attack on the IP lobby, the WP29 letter says:

ICANN should take care in defining purposes in a manner which corresponds to its own organisational mission and mandate, which is to coordinate the stable operation of the Internet’s unique identifier systems. Purposes pursued by other interested third parties should not determine the purposes pursued by ICANN. The WP29 cautions ICANN not to conflate its own purposes with the interests of third parties, nor with the lawful grounds of processing which may be applicable in a particular case.

While it would be fairly easy to argue that giving access to security researchers contributes to “stable operation of the Internet’s unique identifier systems”, I think it would be considerably harder to argue that giving trademark owners an easy way to pursue suspected cybersquatters does the same.
In short, the letter clarifies that, rather than complying too much, ICANN has not gone far enough.
WP29 also roundly ignored ICANN’s request for an enforcement moratorium to give the community enough time to come up with a compliance policy and the industry enough time to implement it, irking ICANN into threatening legal action.
Marby said in a blog post yesterday:

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.

He said that the WP29 statement puts ICANN at odds with the consensus advice of its Governmental Advisory Committee — which, it should be noted, includes the European Commission and most of the EU member states.
The GAC has told ICANN to “Ensure that the proposed interim model maintains current WHOIS requirements to the fullest extent possible” and to reconsider its plan to remove registrant email addresses from public records.
That’s how stupid the situation has become — the same governments telling ICANN to retain email addresses is also telling it to remove them.
Outside of Europe, the United States government has been explicit that it wants Whois access to remain available.
Marby said that an ICANN delegation will attend a meeting of the WP29 Technology Subgroup in Brussels on April 23 to further discuss the outstanding issues.
In a quick response (pdf) to the WP29 letter, he warned that a fragmented Whois and the absence of a moratorium could spell doom for the smooth functioning of the internet.

We strongly believe that if WHOIS is fragmented, it will have a detrimental impact on the entire Internet. A key function of WHOIS allows those participating in the domain name system and in other aspects of work on the Internet to know who else is working within that system. Those working on the Internet require the information contained within WHOIS to be able to communicate with others working within that system.

Reaction from elsewhere in the community has so far comprised variations of “told you so” and hand-wringing about the impact after May 25.
Michele Neylon, head of the registrar Blacknight, blogged that the letter signaled “game over” for the public Whois.
“Come the end of May, public whois as we know it will be dead,” he wrote.
Academic Farzaneh Badii, executive director of the Internet Governance Project and a leading figure in ICANN’s non-commercial users community, blamed several factors for the current 11th-hour predicament, but mainly the fact that her constituency’s lobbying was ignored for so long.
“The Noncommercial Stakeholders Group was the broken record that everyone perceived as not worth paying attention to. But GDPR got real and ICANN has to deal with it,” she wrote.
Matt Serlin of the IP-centric registrar Brandsight, wrote that the letter was “predictable” and said:

The WHOIS system, as it has been known for two decades, will cease to exist. Unfettered access to registration information for gTLDs is simply not going to be possible going forward after May 25th. Yes, there are still questions as to what the final model ICANN puts forth will be, but it will certainly drastically change how WHOIS will function.

Serlin held out some hope that the unspecified legal action Marby has floated may go some way to extend the May 25 GDPR enforcement date.
The community awaits Marby’s next update with bated breath.

Afilias scraps plan to scrap Whois

Afilias has “temporarily suspended” its plan to migrate its TLDs to an essentially thin Whois model.
In what appears to be an effort to roll back some GDPR-related gun-jumping, the registry said it will instead wait and see how ICANN’s efforts to consult with European data protection authorities play out.
Afilias had told its registrars earlier this week that its public Whois output from May 25 will be devoid of any contact information for the registrant, as reported by DNW.
It had said that it would continue to work with law enforcement on access to Whois records, but said that others (such as trademark owners) would not have access until ICANN comes up with an accreditation program.
It was the first major gTLD registry to announce its GDPR plans, but it evidently received push-back.
The affected TLDs were to be: .info, .mobi, .pro, .poker, .pink, .black, .red, .blue, .kim, .shiksha, .promo, .lgbt, .ski, .bio, .green, .lotto, .pet, .bet, .vote, .voto, .archi, .organic and .llc.
Many more client gTLDs would have been able to opt-in to the same scaled-back system.
But the company told registrars today that it wanted to correct “mis-characterizations” of that message and wanted to “clarify that Afilias is not ‘going it alone'”.
Rather, it’s going to hang back until ICANN gets guidance from the EU’s DPAs.
“Importantly, we expect that ICANN’s request for guidance from the data protection authorities will yield helpful input that, in conjunction with the best thinking of the community, will enable a workable solution to emerge,” the Afilias message said.
The company said in a statement sent to DI tonight:

Afilias today announced that it is temporarily suspending plans to limit the display of WHOIS data to comply with the EU General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) currently scheduled to take effect on 25MAY2018. Afilias has received a number of questions about its plans, and anticipates that they may be affected by guidance from data protection authorities that has been requested by ICANN. This guidance is expected to be materially helpful in the community’s efforts to resolve the various issues surrounding GDPR requirements.
Afilias is participating in a number of community groups that are considering these issues, including as a principal in ICANN’s pilot implementation of the Registration Data Access Protocol (RDAP), a potential technical solution for enabling differentiated access to registration data depending on the legitimate purpose of the requestor. For example, law enforcement may need access to certain types of Personally Identifiable Information (PII), trademark guardians to other types, etc. RDAP enables the management of this access in an efficient and effective manner.
As the deadline for GDPR implementation approaches, the community is working diligently in a number of areas to find solutions needed to balance a wide range of community interests. Afilias will continue working collaboratively within these groups in the expectation that appropriate solutions will be reached prior to the GDPR implementation date. Absent guidance from the data protection authorities, Afilias will reconsider its plans as appropriate to ensure compliance with GDPR.

It’s still very possible that Afilias, and other gTLD registries and registrars, could end up gutting Whois in much the same way come May 25 anyway, but for now at least it seems Afilias it willing to play wait-and-see.
As a reminder, there’s going to be an ICANN-supported conference call tomorrow on an Intellectual Property Constituency proposal for a post-GDPR Whois accreditation model.

Whois policy group closes down in face of GDPR

An ICANN working group devoted to crafting Whois policy has closed down “until further notice” in light of the EU General Data Protection Regulation.
The Registration Data Service Policy Development Process Working Group will have no more meetings until it receives “guidance from the [ICANN] Board regarding how this WG will be affected by the GDPR compliance efforts”.
That’s according to WG co-chair Chuck Gomes, in an email to the group this morning. The mailing list will remain active to keep members informed of progress, he said.
The group has been tasked with developing “comprehensive Whois reform”.
It’s been working for over two years to attempt to find consensus on changes such as tiered access and data privacy, the latest iteration of fruitless, fractious Whois policy discussions dating back a couple of decades, and had made very little progress.
Recently, it’s also been hit by infighting and, in my opinion, a sense of helplessness in the face of GDPR, the EU privacy law that will take precedence over any policy ICANN comes up with.
Last month, prominent Non-Commercial Stakeholder Group member Stephanie Perrin publicly resigned from the WG, saying it was “fundamentally flawed” and complaining the process was an “antique” that wasn’t sufficiently taking GDPR into account.
As DI has been reporting for the last several months, there’s very little clarity right now about how GDPR will effect ICANN’s Whois policy.
ICANN CEO Goran Marby told us yesterday that he’s “cautiously optimistic” that EU data protection authorities will soon provide some firm guidance on what it means to be GDPR-compliant.
It appears that the RDS group’s fate may also lie in the hands of the DPAs, for now.

Marby ponders emergency powers to avoid fragmented Whois

ICANN could invoke emergency powers in its contracts to prevent Whois becoming “fragmented” after EU privacy laws kick in next month.
That’s a possibility that emerged during a DI interview with ICANN CEO Goran Marby yesterday.
Marby told us that he’s “cautiously optimistic” that European data protection authorities will soon provide clear guidance that will help the domain industry become compliant with the General Data Protection Regulation, which becomes fully effective May 25.
But he said that a lack of such guidance will lead to a situation where different companies provide different levels of public Whois.
“It’s a a high probability that Whois goes fragmented or that Whois will be in a sort of ‘thin’ model in which very little information is collected and very little information is displayed,” he said. “That’s a sort of worst-case scenario.”
I should note that the interview was conducted yesterday before news broke that Afilias has become the first major gTLD registry to announce its Whois output will be essentially thin — eschewing all registrant contact data — from May 25.
Marby has asked European DPAs for two things.
First, guidance on whether its “Cookbook” proposal for a dramatically scaled-back, GDPR-compliant Whois is in fact GDPR-compliant.
Second, an enforcement moratorium while registries and registrars actually go about implementing the Cookbook.
“If we don’t get guidance that’s clear enough, we will see a fragmented Whois. If we get guidance that is clear enough we can work it out,” Marby said.
A moratorium could enable Whois to carry on in its current state, or something close to it, while ICANN goes about creating a new policy that fits with the DPA’s guidance.
If the DPAs refuse a moratorium, we’re looking at a black hole of indeterminate duration during which nobody — not even law enforcement or self-appointed trademark cops — can easily access full Whois records.
“It’s not something I can do anything about, it’s really in the hands of the DPAs,” Marby said. “Remember that it’s the law.”
While ICANN has expended most of its effort to date on creating a model for the public Whois, there’s a parallel effort to create an accreditation program that would enable organizations with “legitimate purposes” to access full, or at least more complete, Whois records.
It’s the IP lawyers that are driving this effort, primarily, terrified that their ability to hunt down cybersquatters and bootleggers will be diminished come May 25.
ICANN has so far resisted calls to endorse the so-called “Cannoli” draft accreditation model, with Marby publicly saying that it needs cross-community support.
But the organization has committed staff support resources to discussion of Cannoli. There’s a new mailing list and there will be a community conference call this coming Friday at 1400 UTC.
Marby said that he shares the worries of the IP community, adding: “If we get the proper guidance from the DPAs, we will know how to sort out the accreditation model.”
He met with the Article 29 Working Party, comprised of DPAs, last week; the group agreed to put Whois on its agenda for its meeting next week, April 10-11.
The fact that it’s up for discussion is what gives Marby his cautious optimism that he will get the guidance he needs.
Assuming the DPAs deliver, ICANN is then in the predicament of having to figure out a way to enforce, via its contracts, a Whois system that is compliant with the DPAs’ interpretation of GDPR.
Usually, this would require a GNSO Policy Development Process leading to a binding Consensus Policy.
But Marby said ICANN’s board of directors has other options, such as what he called an “emergency policy”.
This is a reference, I believe, to the “Temporary Policies” clauses, which can be found in the Registrar Accreditation Agreement and Registry Agreement.
Such policies can be mandated by a super-majority vote of the board, would have to be narrowly tailored to solve the specific problem at hand, and could be in effect no longer than one year.
A temporary policy could be replaced by a compatible, community-created Consensus Policy.
It’s possible that a temporary policy could, for example, force Afilias and others to reverse their plans to switch to thin Whois.
But that’s perhaps getting ahead of ourselves.
Fact is, the advice the DPAs provide following their Article 29 meeting next week is what’s going to define Whois for the foreseeable future.
If the guidance is clear, the ICANN organization and community will have their direction of travel mapped out for them.
If it’s vague, wishy-washy, and non-committal, then it’s likely that only the European Court of Justice will be able to provide clarity. And that would take many years.
And whatever the DPAs say, Marby says it is “highly improbable” that Whois will continue to exist in its current form.
“The GDPR will have an effect on the Whois system. Not everybody will get access to the Whois system. Not everybody will have as easy access as before,” he said.
“That’s not a bug, that’s a feature of the legislation,” he said. “That’s not ICANN’s fault, it’s what the legislator thought when it made this legislation. It is the legislators’ intention to make sure people’s data is handled in a different way going forward, so it will have an effect.”
The community awaits the DPAs’ guidance with baited breath.

ICANN chief begs privacy watchdogs for Whois advice

ICANN CEO Goran Marby has written to the data protection authorities of all 28 European Union states, along with the European Data Protection Supervisor, to ask for guidance on how to implement new privacy laws.
Marby also asked the DPAs about the possibility of an enforcement moratorium, to give the domain industry and ICANN more time to formulate their collective response to the General Data Protection Regulation.
GDPR, which aims to give EU citizens more control over their personal data, comes into full effect May 25. Companies that break the rules face fines that could amount to millions of euros.
But ICANN does not yet have a firm plan for bringing the distributed Whois system into compliance with GDPR, and has repeatedly indicated that it needs guidance from European DPAs.
“ICANN and more than a thousand of the domain names registries and registrars are at a critical juncture,” Marby wrote (pdf).
“We need specific guidance from European data protection authorities in order to meet the needs of the global internet stakeholder community, including governments, privacy authorities, law enforcement agencies, intellectual property holders, cybersecurity experts, domain name registries, registrars, registrants and ordinary internet users,” he wrote.
ICANN has already written a proposal — known as the “Cookbook” and sent to DPAs three weeks ago — for how gTLD registrars and registries could comply with GDPR by removing most fields from public Whois records.
But Marby’s letter points out that many ICANN community members think the Cookbook either goes too far or not far enough.
As we reported a week ago, the Governmental Advisory Committee and Intellectual Property Constituency are not convinced ICANN needs to chop quite as much info from the public Whois as it’s currently planning.
But on the flipside, there are privacy advocates who think far less data should be collected on registrants and fundamentally question ICANN’s power to mandate public Whois access in its registry and registrar contracts.
Both sides of the debate are referenced in the letter.
“Guidance from DPAs on ICANN’s plan of action as presented in the Cookbook, and in particular, the areas where there are competing views, is critical as soon as possible, but particularly during the next few weeks,” Marby wrote.
Whether ICANN will get the answers it needs on the timetable it needs them is open to debate.
Many community members expressed skepticism about whether the DPAs’ commitment to the urgency of the issue matches ICANN’s own, during ICANN 61 earlier this month.
There seemed to be little confidence that the DPAs’ responses, should ICANN receive any, will provide the clarity the industry needs.
It may also be bad timing given the unrelated Cambridge Analytica/Facebook scandal, which appears to be consuming the attention of some European DPAs.

Stéphane Van Gelder dies after motorcycle accident

I’m very sad to report that domain name industry veteran and ICANN community leader Stéphane Van Gelder has died. He was 51.
Friends tell me he died today of injuries sustained in a vehicle crash in Switzerland near the Italian border.
According to a local report, he and his wife were hit by a car March 23, while stopped on their motorcycles at a traffic light.
His wife, Julie, was also injured but survived.
Stéphane was a long-time member of the industry, in 1999 co-founding the French registrar Indom, which he sold to Group NBT in 2010.
After Indom, he became an independent consultant, first under the brand Stéphane Van Gelder Consulting, later as Milathan.
He joined new gTLD registry StartingDot in 2014 and saw the company through to its acquisition by Afilias in 2016.
He told us at the time of his rebranding that the name “Milathan” was a “derivative of words in Hindi that mean ‘union’ or ‘meeting’ in the sense of bringing people together”.
It was perhaps an appropriate name, given Stéphane’s record of successful senior leadership positions in the ICANN volunteer community.
Notably, he chaired the GNSO Council for two years from 2010, and was chair of the Nominating Committee from 2015.
His most recent social media posts show that he was on a motorcycle tour of Italy with his wife before his accident near Lake Como.
Stéphane and I were not close, but in our interactions I always found him knowledgeable, witty, and charming. A thoroughly nice guy.
He was also one of the very few people in the industry I’ve trusted enough to write guest posts for DI over the years. Here he is fighting the GNSO’s corner in 2012.
Stéphane is survived by his wife and, friends tell me, two children. They have our condolences, and we wish his wife a speedy recovery.
He will be missed.

Some men at ICANN meetings really are assholes

Several men have been accused of sexual harassment at ICANN meetings.
A group of women have written to ICANN with five stories of how they were groped, intimidated, objectified or otherwise harassed in violation of not only common decency but also ICANN’s year-old anti-harassment policy.
They’ve not named the alleged harassers, but hinted that they may do so in future.
If we assume the stories are all the unembellished truth — and we kinda have to nowadays — then the behavior described is unambiguously out of order.
Fortunately, none of the allegations rise to the level of the obviously seriously criminal. In these cases we appear to be talking more Hoffman than Weinstein.
But we’re not talking about bizarro Cheesesandwichgate-level interactions either. The stories allege groping, simulated sexual activity, and physical restraint, among other things.
In one allegation, a woman claims a drunk man touched her rear during a social interaction.
In another, a man is alleged to have attempted to let himself into a woman’s hotel room, prompting her to block the door from the inside with a chair, after his earlier advances were rebuffed.
Another woman claims a man she had never met chose, as his opening conversational gambit, to compliment her appearance and inquire after her marital status — during a daytime coffee break for crying out loud — and then grabbed her waist and wrists to prevent her from leaving.
“If you want to start a conversation, ask what I do, what do I work with and why am I here,” the woman is quoted as saying. “Do not acknowledge physical attributes and reduce me to this.”
“If you want to talk to women in a professional setting, do not tighten her wrists, do not grab her waist. Do not ask whether she is married or not,” she said. “Regardless, you should respect her integrity, not her marital status.”
Another man is accused of simulating a sex position with a woman during a cocktail event.
A fifth is accused of “body-blocking” a woman as she attempted to leave a room.
The letter states:

These actions which are definitely categorized as harassment and even assault, would not only affect the woman who went through the incident but it would also lead to several probable repercussions such as (1) Her withdrawal from the community and physical presence. We all know how important being present in meetings is on different levels of engagement in and outside meetings (2) When no solid response from the community is done towards the harasser, there can definitely be an increase in aggressive characters of harassers as there would be no accountability to stop them (3) With the increase in harassment there surely will be a decrease in the representation of young women’s voices in any proceeding which defies the core concept of diversity.

The letter (pdf) is unsigned, and ICANN broke with its usual practice of listing the sender on the correspondence page of its web site.
The letter also does not name any of the accused men, but it and a related comment from a group of women at the public forum at ICANN 61 last week, said the women “refrain from using names for now, in order to keep the focus on the topic and not the person”.
It’s been DI practice to not name either party concerned in such allegations, even when we know who they are.
While the anti-harassment policy exists to deal precisely with the kinds of behaviors outlined in the letter, we reported in November that the ICANN Ombudsman had received no complaints whatsoever invoking the policy, even after the post-Weinstein sea change in workplace sexual politics.
But the letter-writers say this is because the current Ombudsman, Herb Weye, is a man, and women are sometimes reluctant to report such incidents to a man. The letter states:

There should be a woman ombudsperson for harassment reporting. It has been proven by several studies that given the sensitivity of the issue, harassment reports are more prone to be tackled and come forth with, when the ombudsperson is (a) a woman (b) an expert in gender-related issues and mitigating harassment risks

They’re also not confident that the policy, which has yet to be tested, will cause more good than harm.
They also want all ICANN meeting delegates to read the harassment policy as a condition for attendance, and for signage at the meetings to warn against inappropriate behavior.
In response to the public forum comments, ICANN vice-chair Chris Disspain promised that the board will respond to the women’s letter, adding that the Ombudsman is taking a look at how the harassment policy has been implemented.
“It’s very important that ICANN is a safe place for everyone,” chair Cherine Chalaby told the women. “The more we raise awareness, the more it is safe.”
The message to certain blokes at ICANN meetings seems pretty clear: stop being assholes.
Like most places of work, the ICANN community is resplendent with examples of people forming lasting romantic relationships — or even just getting laid — but none of them began with a man grabbing a woman’s backside without her consent.

Is ICANN over-reacting to Whois privacy law?

Is ICANN pushing the domain industry to over-comply with the European Union’s incoming General Data Protection Regulation privacy law?
Governments and plenty of intellectual property and business lobbyists think so.
After days of criticism from unhappy IP lawyers, ICANN’s public meeting in Puerto Rico last week was capped with a withering critique of the organization’s proposed plan for the industry to become GDPR compliant as pertains Whois.
The Governmental Advisory Committee, in unusually granular terms, picked apart the plan in its usual formal, end-of-meeting advice bomb, which focused on making sure law enforcement and IP owners continue to get unfettered Whois access after GDPR kicks in in May.
Key among the GAC’s recommendations (pdf) is that the post-GDPR public Whois system should continue to publish the email address of each domain registrant.
Under ICANN’s plan — now known as the “Cookbook” — that field would be obscured and replaced with a contact form or anonymized email address.
The GAC advised ICANN to “reconsider the proposal to hide the registrant email address as this may not be proportionate in view of the significant negative impact on law enforcement, cybersecurity and rights protection;”.
But its rationale for the advice is a little wacky, suggesting that email addresses under some unspecified circumstances may not contain “personal data”:

publication of the registrant’s email address should be considered in light of the important role of this data element in the pursuit of a number of legitimate purposes and the possibility for registrants to provide an email address that does not contain personal data.

That’s kinda like saying your mailing address and phone number aren’t personal data, in my view. Makes no sense.
The GAC advice will have won the committee friends in the Intellectual Property Constituency and Business Constituency, which throughout ICANN 61 had been pressuring ICANN to check whether removing email addresses from public Whois was strictly necessary.
ICANN is currently acting as a non-exclusive middleman between community members and the 20-odd Data Protection Authorities — which will be largely responsible for enforcing GDPR — in the EU.
It’s running compliance proposals it compiles from community input past the DPAs in the hope of a firm nod, or just some crumbs of guidance.
But the BC and IPC have been critical that ICANN is only submitting a single, rather Draconian proposal — one which would eschew email addresses from the public Whois — to the DPAs.
In a March 13 session, BC member Steve DelBianco pressed ICANN CEO Goran Marby and other executives and directors repeatedly on this point.
“If they [the DPAs] respond ‘Yes, that’s sufficient,’ we won’t know whether it was necessary,” DelBianco said, worried that the Cookbook guts Whois more than is required.
ICANN general counsel John Jeffrey conceded that the Cookbook given to the DPAs only contains one proposal, but said that it also outlines the “competing views” in the ICANN community on publishing email addresses and asks for guidance.
But email addresses are not the only beef the GAC/IPC/BC have with the ICANN proposal.
On Thursday, the GAC also advised that legal entities that are not “natural persons” should continue to have their full information published in the public Whois, on the grounds that GDPR only applies to people, not organizations.
That’s contrary to ICANN’s proposal, which for pragmatic reasons makes no distinction between people and companies.
There’s also the question of whether the new regime of Whois privacy should apply to all registrants, or just those based in the European Economic Area.
ICANN plans to give contracted parties the option to make it apply in blanket fashion worldwide, but some say that’s overkill.
Downtime for Whois?
While there’s bickering about which fields should be made private under the new regime, there doesn’t seem to be any serious resistance to the notion that, after May, Whois will become a two-tier system with a severely depleted public service and a firewalled, full-fat version for law enforcement and whichever other “legitimate users” can get their feet in the door.
The problem here is that while ICANN envisions an accreditation program for these legitimate users — think trademark lawyers, security researchers, etc — it has made little progress towards actually creating one.
In other words, Whois could go dark for everyone just two months from now, at least until the accreditation program is put in place.
The GAC doesn’t like that prospect.
It said in its advice that ICANN should: “Ensure continued access to the WHOIS, including non-public data, for users with a legitimate purpose, until the time when the interim WHOIS model is fully operational, on a mandatory basis for all contracted parties”.
But ICANN executives said in a session on Thursday that the org plans to ask the DPAs for a deferral of enforcement of GDPR over Whois until the domain industry has had time to come into compliance while continuing to grant access to full Whois to police and special interests.
December appears to be the favored date for this proposed implementation deadline, but ICANN is looking for feedback on its timetable by this coming Friday, March 23.
But the IPC/BC faction are not stting on their hands.
Halfway through ICANN 61 they expressed support for a draft accreditation model penned by consultant Fred Felman, formerly of brand protection registrar MarkMonitor.
The model, nicknamed “Cannoli” (pdf) for some reason, unsurprisingly would give full Whois access to anyone with enough money to afford a trademark registration, and those acting on behalf of trademark owners.
Eligible accreditees would also include security researchers and internet safety organizations with the appropriate credentials.
Once approved, accredited Whois users would have unlimited access to Whois records for defined purposes such as trademark enforcement or domain transfers. All of their queries would be logged and randomly audited, and they could lose accreditation if found to be acting outside of their legitimate purpose.
But Cannoli felt some resistance from ICANN brass, some of whom pointed out that it had been drafted by just one part of the community
“If the community — the whole community — comes up with an accreditation model we would be proud to put that before the DPAs,” Marby said during Thursday’s public forum in Puerto Rico.
It’s a somewhat ironic position, given that ICANN was just a few weeks ago prepared to hand over responsibility for creating the first stage of the accreditation program — covering law enforcement — wholesale to the GAC.
The GAC’s response to that request?
It’s not interested. Its ICANN 61 communique said the GAC “does not envision an operational role in designing and implementing the proposed accreditation programs”.