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.

Registrars will miss GDPR deadline by a mile

Registries and registrars won’t be able to implement ICANN’s proposed overhaul of the Whois system in time for the EU’s General Data Protection Regulation coming into effect.
That’s according to an estimated timetable (pdf) sent by ICANN’s contracted parties to the organization this week.
While they feel confident that some elements of ICANN’s GDPR compliance plan could be in place before May 25 this year, when the law kicks in, they feel that other elements could take many months to design and roll out.
Depending on the detail of the finalized plan, we could be looking at the back end of 2019 before all the pieces have been put in place.
Crucially, the contracted parties warn that designing and rolling out a temporary method for granting Whois access to entities with legitimate interests in the data, such as police and trademark owners, could take a year.
And that’s just the stop-gap, Band-Aid hack that individual registries and registrars would put in place while waiting — “quarters (or possibly years), rather than months” — for a fully centralized ICANN accreditation solution to be put in place.
The outlook looks bleak for those hoping for uninterrupted Whois access, in other words.
But the timetable lists many other sources of potential delay too.
Even just replacing the registrant’s email address with a web form or anonymized forwarding address could take up to four months to put online, the contracted parties say.
Generally speaking, the more the post-GDPR Whois differs from the current model the longer the contracted parties believe it will take to roll out.
Likewise, the more granular the controls on the data, the longer the implementation window.
For example, if ICANN forces registrars to differentiate between legal and natural persons, or between European and non-European registrants, that’s going to add six months to the implementation time and cost a bomb, the letter says.
Anything that messes with EPP, the protocol underpinning all registry-registrar interactions, will add some serious time to the roll-out too, due to the implementation time and the contractual requirement for a 90-day notice period.
The heaviest workload highlighted in the letter is the proposed opt-in system for registrants (such as domain investors) who wish to waive their privacy rights in favor of making themselves more contactable.
The contracted parties reckon this would take nine months if it’s implemented only at the registrar, or up to 15 months if coordination between registries and registrars is required (and that timeline assumes no new EPP extensions are going to be needed).
It’s possible that the estimates in the letter could be exaggerated as part of the contracted parties’ efforts to pressure ICANN to adopt the kind of post-GDPR Whois they want to see.
But even if we assume that is the case, and even if ICANN were to finalize its compliance model tomorrow, there appears to be little chance that it will be fully implemented at all registrars and registries in time for May 25.
The letter notes that the timetable is an estimate and does not apply to all contracted parties.
As I blogged earlier today, ICANN CEO Goran Marby has this week reached out to data protection authorities across the EU for guidance, in a letter that also asks the DPAs for an enforcement moratorium while the industry and community gets its act together.
Late last year, ICANN also committed not to enforce the Whois elements of its contracts when technical breaches are actually related to GDPR compliance.

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.

Cybersquatting cases up because of .com

The World Intellectual Property Organization handled cybersquatting cases covering almost a thousand extra domain names in 2017 over the previous year, but almost all of the growth came from complaints about .com names, according to the latest WIPO stats.
There were 3,074 UDRP cases filed with WIPO in 2017, up about 1.2% from the 3,036 cases heard in 2016, WIPO said in its annual roundup last week.
That’s slower growth than 2016, which saw a 10% increase in cases over the previous year.
But the number domains complained about in UDRP was up more sharply — 6,370 domains versus 5,374 in 2016.

WIPO said that 12% of its 2017 cases covered domains registered in new gTLDs, down from 16% in 2016.
If you drill into its numbers, you see that 3,997 .com domains were complained about in 2017, up by 862 domains or 27% from the 3,135 seen in 2016.
.com accounted for 66% of UDRP’d domains in 2016 and 70% in 2017. The top four domains in WIPO’s table are all legacy gTLDs.
As usual when looking at stats for basically anything in the domain business in the last few years, the tumescent rise and meteoric fall of .xyz and .top have a lot to say about the numbers.
In 2016, they accounted for 321 and 153 of WIPO’s UDRP domains respectively, but they were down to 66 and 24 domains in 2017.
Instead, three Radix TLDs — .store, .site and .online — took the honors as the most complained-about new gTLDs, with 98, 79, and 74 domains respectively. Each of those three TLDs saw dozens more complained-about domains in 2017 than in 2016.
As usual, interpreting WIPO’s annual numbers requires caution for a number of reasons, among them: WIPO is not the only dispute resolution provider to handle UDRP cases, rises and falls in UDRP filings do not necessarily equate to rises and falls in cybersquatting, and comparisons between .com and new gTLDs do not take into account that new gTLDs also have the URS as an alternative dispute mechanism.

Privacy could be a million-dollar business for ICANN

ICANN has set out the fees it plans to charge to officially accredit Whois proxy and privacy services, in the face of resistance from some registrars.
VP of finance Becky Nash told registrars during a session at ICANN 61 last week that they can expect to pay $3,500 for their initial accreditation and $4,000 per year thereafter.
Those are exactly the same fees as ICANN charges under its regular registrar accreditation program.
Registrars that also offer privacy should expect to see their annual ICANN flat fees double, in other words. Per-domain transaction fees would be unaffected.
The up-front application fee would be reduced $2,000 when the privacy service is to be offered by an accredited registrar, but it would stay at $3,500 if the company offering service is merely “affiliated” with the registrar.
Nash said all the fees have been calculated on a per-accreditation basis, independent of the volume of applications ICANN receives.
Director of registrar services Jennifer Gore said that while ICANN has not baked an estimate of the number of accredited providers into its calculations, registrars have previously estimated the number at between 200 and 250 companies.
That would put the upper end of annual accreditation fees at $1 million, with $875,000 up-front for initial applications.
Volker Greimann, general counsel of the registrar Key-Systems, pointed out during the session that many registrars give away privacy services for free or at cost.
“This just adds cost to an already expensive service that does not really make money for a lot of providers,” he said.
He suggested that the prices could lead to unexpected negative consequences.
“Pricing this in this region will just lead to a lot of unaccredited providers that will switch names every couple months, an underground that we don’t really want,” he said. “We want to have as many people on board as possible and the way to do that is to keep costs low.”
“Pricing them out of the market is not the way to attract providers to join this scheme,” he said.
Nash responded that registrars are forbidden under the incoming privacy/proxy policy from accepting registrations from unaccredited services.
She added that the fees have been calculated on a “cost-recovery” basis. Costs include the initial background checks, outreach, contract admin, compliance, billing and so on.
But some registrars expressed skepticism that the proposed fees could be justified, given that ICANN does not plan to staff up to administer the program.
Another big question is whether proxy/privacy services are going to continue to have value after May this year, when the European Union’s General Data Protection Regulation kicks in.
The current ICANN plan for GDPR compliance would see individual registrants have all of their private information removed from the public Whois.
It’s not currently clear how many people and what kinds of people will continue to have access to unmasked Whois, so there are likely still plenty of cases where individuals might feel they need an extra layer of protection — if they live in a dictatorship and are engaged in rebellious political speech, for example.
There could also be cases where companies wish to mask their details ahead of, say, a product launch.
And, let’s face it, bad actors will continue to want to use privacy services on domains they intend to misuse.
The proxy/privacy policy came up through the formal GNSO Policy Development Process and was approved two years ago. It’s currently in the implementation phase.
According to a presentation from the ICANN 61 session, ICANN hopes to put the final implementation plan out for public comment by the end of the month.

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”.

A lazy blogger’s wish-list for ICANN remote participation

Remote participation at ICANN meetings is pretty damn good, but I’m an ungrateful asshole and I want more.
I’ve had a personal wish-list of remote participation features during and immediately after every ICANN meeting for a few years now, but when ICANN turned off Adobe Connect for the back half of ICANN 61 last week I was inspired to put pen to paper and rant about it in public.
Make no mistake, these are minor quibbles and no diss to the thoroughly lovely people on the ICANN meetings team.
In a community where are great many people are tasked with herding cats, the meetings guys are the only ones who have to physically herd the cats into their windowless pens through the sheer power of their organizational skills.
Not to mention they have to ensure all the cats are fed, watered, caffeinated, inebriated, and have trays of gravel into which to do their dirty business.
(Sorry, that metaphor got away from me a little there.)
My point is, the fact that anyone ever gets anything done at an ICANN meeting is due in no small part to the folk who actually organize the events, including the remote participation.
With all those disclaimers in mind, here are a few things I would like to see in future.
Archive the scribe feeds
The ICANN scribe feed, provided for as long as I can remember by Brewer & Darrenougue and StreamText is excellent.
It provides a live, scrolling, text transcription, in English, of whatever is being said in a session. It’s not 100% accurate all of the time, but it’s damn close.
Over the years, the scribes seem to have gained an ear for the regular speakers. It’s increasingly rare to see “[SAYING NAME]” in a feed, and we don’t often see pleas from the scribes for speakers to slow down any more.
This allows Anglo monoglot basement-dwellers such as myself to identify who’s talking and get a rough idea what they’re saying, even when they are Catalan registry operators speak quickly in heavily accented, non-native English.
The problem with the feed is that they disappear immediately after each session ends, usually at lunch time and again at the end of the day. Remote participants then have to wait anywhere from a day to several days for the full, edited transcript to be published.
I think the resource cost of immediately publishing the full, warts-and-all scribe transcript would be negligible.
Even if StreamText doesn’t offer it as an automated feature, copy-pasting a session transcript from a browser window into a PDF and banging it on the ICANN web site shouldn’t take more than a few minutes. I know; for several meetings I did it myself on selected sessions as a public service.
Bring back the MP3s
Not too long ago, the audio-only streams were recorded into MP3 files and dumped on the meeting web site in short order, often the same day.
Now, instead, we get M3U files, which are basically just links to streams. And the streams are extremely temperamental, regularly skipping around, restarting or simply stopping for no readily apparent reason.
Today, attempting to re-listen to the M3U of last Thursday’s Public Forum, I had to restart the stream and go hunting for the position I’d been kicked out maybe a dozen times. It was very irritating.
MP3s have the added advantage that they can be listened to offline, allowing you to catch up on sessions you missed while, for example, loitering at an airport with crappy wifi.
I want the MP3s back, dammit!
Consider YouTube maybe?
Recent meetings have seen the introduction of Livestream.com as an alternative to Adobe Connect for viewing live video.
I assume ICANN is paying for this service, probably five figures per year, but I have no idea what benefit (if any) the service offers over YouTube live streaming.
It doesn’t even always work. Try getting Thursday’s Public Forum recording to play. I couldn’t.
Is there any particular reason YouTube is not a viable option? As far as I know it’s free and reliable. YouTubers with far greater audiences than ICANN seem to get away with using it on a daily basis.
It could even be monetized, turning an expense into a small source of additional revenue.
Bring back meaningful filenames
ICANN is pretty good about publishing transcripts, presentations and other documentation as PDFs on the pages for each session. But for some reason in Puerto Rico it started naming the files with apparently meaningless numerical strings.
In all the meetings I can recall before ICANN 61, a downloadable transcript might be named something like “transcript-public-forum-10mar16-en.pdf”. Now, you’ll get something like “1521076292.pdf” instead, which is a step backwards.
Sure, I could manually rename the file to something meaningful myself, but that would take me at least 30 seconds — 30 seconds I could better use listening to Marilyn Cade introduce herself, Goran Marby apologize for something, or literally anyone else in the community complain that nobody listens to them any more.
Keep the redundancy!
Finally, as ICANN discovered this week, redundancy is essential to maintaining uninterrupted remote participation.
Even with Adobe Connect offline across the board for half of the week, it was still possible for those of us in the cheap seats to see video, hear audio, read the scribes, and submit questions and comments.
It wasn’t perfect, but it did the job well enough (previous complaints notwithstanding).
Even when Adobe is turned on, the alternative methods of listening in are extremely useful for overcoming its occasional limitations.
Often, AC rooms are barely audible. This problem occurs on an almost daily basis during ICANN. It affects some rooms but not others and I’ve yet to spot a predictable pattern.
But when you can’t hear what’s going on in AC, it’s always possible to mute the room and launch the always-audible live M3U stream separately.
Similarly, on the rare occasions the audio or video is down, the scribes can often allow us to follow the gist of the discussion while the nerds work on a fix.
In short, redundancy is good.
UPDATE (MARCH 21): Josh Baulch from the ICANN meetings team has left a comment addressing some of these points. It turns out MP3s are actually available elsewhere on the ICANN web site and Livestream costs ICANN far, far less than I had estimated based on Livestream’s published price list.