Whois policy published without life-saving disclosure rule

ICANN has updated its Registration Data Policy, the rules that govern what data registries and registrars need to collect from registrants and when to publish or supply it through Whois lookups or disclosure requests.

When it becomes enforceable in August next year, the new RDP will make full-fat ICANN Whois policy compliant with EU privacy law for the first time since the General Data Protection Regulation came into effect in May 2018.

But the new policy, which replaces a functionally very similar temporary policy, is notable not only for the extraordinary amount of time it took to produce, but also for not containing a disputed requirement for registrars and registries to quickly turn over private Whois data when human life is at risk.

The policy dictates what contact information registrars must collect from their customers, what they must share with their registries, escrow agents and others, and what they must redact in the public Whois (or Registration Data Directory Services, as it will become known when Whois is retired next January).

It also says that registries and registrars must acknowledge private data disclosure requests no more than two business days after receipt and respond to the requests in full less than 30 calendar days after that, barring delays caused by “exceptional circumstances”.

But, due purely to ICANN community politicking, the policy for now omits previously considered language on “urgent” disclosure requests for use in “circumstances that pose an imminent threat to life, of serious bodily injury, to critical infrastructure, or of child exploitation”.

I’d like to think such circumstances are incredibly rare, but if there’s a situation where a Whois disclosure could help prevent a bomb going off at a major internet exchange, a trans rights activist being hounded into suicide, or a little kid getting raped on a livestream, the new ICANN policy does not account for that.

The version of the policy published in July last year (pdf) did include an urgent requests provision, requiring contracted parties to either turn over the data or tell the requester to get lost within 24 hours of receipt.

But it also contained a bunch of exceptions that could allow registrars to extend that deadline by up to three business days. When weekends and public holidays are taken into account, this could mean as much as a full calendar week to process an “urgent”, potentially life-saving request.

For that reason, the Governmental Advisory Committee wrote to ICANN (pdf) last August to ask it to revisit the policy language, chuck out the reference to “business” days, and stick to a 24-hour response window

The original Expedited Policy Development Process Working Group that came up with the policy recommendations had not specified how long registrars and registries should have to respond to urgent disclosure requests, punting that decision to the Implementation Review Team that drafted the final language.

An August 2022 draft (pdf) put out for public comment made the response window two business days, with a possible one-day extension, but this was reduced to 24 hours last year in what registrars describe as a “significant compromise” given the operational reality of responding to disclosure requests.

In August last year, the Registrars Stakeholder Group told ICANN (pdf) that its members “are committed to responding to Urgent requests in the most swift and expeditious manner possible” but said it objected to the GAC’s last-minute demands for the urgent disclosures policy to be rewritten.

From the registrars’ perspective, handling disclosure requests for personal data is not a simple ask. It’s a legal decision, balancing the privacy rights of the registrant with the rights of others to access that information.

Get it wrong, and you’re open to litigation and fines substantial enough to be expressed as a percentage of your revenue. And, money aside, who wants to be the guy who, for example, accidentally helps the Iranian morality police murder a bunch of schoolgirls for wearing the wrong type of hat?

But the argument between the registrars and the governments comes down to issues of ICANN process. Both the GAC and the RrSG claimed the urgent disclosures bunfight highlights deficiencies in ICANN multistakeholderism, but for different reasons.

ICANN’s response to this disagreement was to remove the urgent requests clauses from the policy altogether, in the hope that further talks can find a solution. Chair Tripti Sinha wrote to the RrSG and GAC a couple weeks ago to tell them:

the Board concluded that it is necessary to revisit Policy Recommendation 18 concerning urgent requests in the context of situations that pose an imminent threat to life, serious bodily harm, infrastructure, or child exploitation, and the manner in which such emergencies are currently handled. For this, we believe that consultation with the GNSO Council is required.

ICANN has essentially kicked the can, which was what the GAC had asked for. The RrSG wanted the July 2023 language (one-plus-three days) or August 2022 language (two-plus-one days) published in the final policy.

It’s stuff like this that makes one scratch one’s head, stroke one’s chin, and wonder whether ICANN really is fit for purpose.

There were 2,312 days between the day the European Commission first proposed the GDPR to the day it became effective in all EU member states.

But 2,590 days will have passed between the day the GNSO Council initiated the EPDP and the day the new Registration Data Policy will become effective on all contracted parties, next August.

The lumbering, then-28-state European Union was faster at passing policy than ICANN, even when ICANN was using an “expedited” process.

And what ICANN eventually came up with couldn’t even agree on ways to help tackle murder, economic catastrophes, and the rape of kids.

ICANN signs Whois’ death warrant in new contracts

Whois as we have known it for decades will be phased out of gTLDs over the next couple of years, after ICANN approved changes to its contracts at the weekend.

The board of directors signed off on amendments to the base Registry Agreement and Registrar Accreditation Agreement after they were approved by the requisite majority of registries and registrars earlier this year.

The changes outline how registries and registrars must make the move away from Whois, the technical specification, toward the functionally similar RDAP, the Registration Data Access Protocol.

After the amendments go into effect, contracted parties will have about 18 months to make the migration. They’ll be allowed to run Whois services in parallel if they wish after the transition.

People will in all likelihood carry on referring to such services as “Whois”, regardless, rather than the official replacement term “Registration Data Directory Services” or RDDS.

The RAA amendment will also require registrars to provide full RDAP output, rather than relying on “thick” registries to do it for them.

None of the changes affect how much personal information is returned for domain ownership lookups.

New ICANN contracts chart the death throes of Whois

Whois is on its death bed, and new versions of ICANN’s standard contracts put a timeline to its demise.

The Org has posted proposed updates to its Registrar Accreditation Agreement and Registry Agreement, and most of the changes focus on the industry-wide transition from the Whois standard to the newer Registration Data Access Protocol.

We’re only talking about a change in the technical spec and terminology here. There’ll still be query services you can use to look up the owner of a domain and get a bunch of redactions in response. People will probably still even refer to it as “Whois”.

But when the new RAA goes into effect, likely next year, registrars and registries will have roughly 18 months to make the transition from Whois to RDAP.

Following the contract’s effective date there’ll be an “RDAP Ramp-up Period” during which registrars will not be bound by RDAP service-level agreements. That runs for 180 days.

After the end of that phase, registrars will only have to keep their Whois functioning for another 360 days, until the “WHOIS Services Sunset Date”. After that, they’ll be free to turn Whois off or keep it running (still regulated by ICANN) as they please.

ICANN’s CEO and the chair of the Registrars Stakeholder Group will be able to delay this sunset date if necessary.

Most registrars already run an RDAP server, following an order from ICANN in 2019. IANA publishes a list of the service URLs. One registrar has already lost its accreditation in part because it did not deploy one.

There’ll be implementation work for some registrars, particularly smaller ones, to come into compliance with the new RAA, no doubt.

There’ll also be changes needed for third-party software and services that leverage Whois in some way, such as in the security field or even basic query services. Anyone not keeping track of ICANN rules could be in for a sharp shock in a couple of years.

The contracted parties have been negotiating these changes behind closed doors for almost three years. It’s been almost a decade since the last RAA was agreed.

The contracts are open for public comment until October 24.

Russian registry hit with second breach notice after downtime

ICANN has issued another breach notice against the registry for .gdn, which seems to be suffering technical problems and isn’t up-to-date on its bills.

Navigation-Information Systems seems to have experienced about 36 hours of Whois/RDDS downtime starting from April 22, and is past due with its quarterly ICANN fees, according to the notice.

Contractually, if ICANN’s probes detect downtime of Whois more than 24 hours per week, that’s enough to trigger emergency measures, allowing ICANN to migrate the TLD to an Emergency Back-End Registry Operator.

Today, the registry’s web site hasn’t resolved for me in several hours, timing out instead, suggesting serious technical problems. Other non-registry .gdn web sites seem to work just fine.

NIS seems to be a Russian company — although most ICANN records give addresses in Dubai and Toronto — so it might be tempting to speculate that its troubles might be a result of some kind of cyber-war related to the Ukraine invasion.

But it’s not the first time this has happened by a long shot.

The company experienced a pretty much identical problem twice a year earlier, and it seems to have happened in 2018 and 2019 also.

NIS just can’t seem to keep its Whois up.

According to the breach notice, whenever Compliance manages to reach the registry’s 24/7 emergency contact they’re told he/she can’t help.

ICANN has given the registry until May 29 to fix its systems and pay up, or risk termination.

.gdn was originally applied for as something related to satellites, but it launched as an open generic that attracted over 300,000 registrations, mostly via disgraced registrar AlpNames, earning it a leading position in spam blocklists. Today, it has around 11,000 names under management, mostly via a Dubai registrar that seems to deal purely in .gdn names.

ICANN threatens to seize gTLD after Whois downtime

Are we about to see our next gTLD registry implosion?

ICANN has whacked the company behind .gdn with a breach notice and a threat that it may seize the TLD, after its Whois systems allegedly suffered days of downtime.

According to ICANN, .gdn exceeded its weekly and monthly downtime limits in late March and early April, in both months triggering the threshold whereby ICANN is allowed to transition the TLD to an Emergency Back-End Registry Operator.

gTLD registries are allowed to have 864 minutes (about 14 hours) of unplanned Whois downtime per month. Downtime exceeding 24 hours per week is enough to trigger ICANN’s EBERO powers.

It appears to be the third time .gdn’s Whois has gone on the blink for longer than the permitted period — ICANN says it happened in April 2018 and August 2019 too. Those incidents were not publicized.

It seems the Russian registry, Joint Stock Company “Navigation-information systems”, managed to fix the problem on April 2, and ICANN is not invoking the EBERO transition, something it has done just a couple times before, just yet.

But it does want NIS to present it with a plan showing how it intends to avoid another spell of excessive downtime in future. It has until May 8, or ICANN may escalate.

.gdn is by most measures a bullshit TLD.

While it was originally intended to address some kind of satellite navigation niche, it eventually launched as a pure generic with the backronym “Global Domain Name” in 2016.

It managed to rack up over 300,000 registrations in the space of a year, almost all via disgraced and now-defunct registrar AlpNames, and was highlighted by SpamHaus as being one of the most spam-friendly of the new gTLDs.

After AlpNames went out of business two years ago, ICANN transferred some 350,000 .gdn names to CentralNic-owned registrar Key-Systems.

Today, Key-Systems has fewer than 300 .gdn domains. The TLD’s zone file dropped by about 290,000 domains in a single day last December.

.gdn had fewer than 11,000 domains under management at the end of 2020, 90% of which were registered through a Dubai-based registrar called Intracom Middle East FZE.

Intracom pretty much only sells .gdn domains, suggesting an affiliation with the registry.

Web searches for live sites using .gdn return not much more than what looks like porn spam.

A busted Whois looks like the least of its problems, to be honest.

DI Leaders Roundtable #2 — Should we kill off “Whois”?

Should we stop using the word “Whois” to describe registration data lookup services?
That’s the question I posed for the second DI Leaders Roundtable.
I’m sure you’re all very well aware that the Registration Data Access Protocol (RDAP) is the imminent replacement for the Whois protocol, as the technical method by which domain registrant contact information is stored, transmitted and displayed.
ICANN also regularly refers to Registration Data Directory Services (RDDS) as a protocol-independent blanket term covering the concept of looking up Whois or RDAP data.
You may also recall that ICANN, which is ostensibly a technical body, appears to bedeprecating the word “Whois” in favor of “Lookup” on its own web-based query service.
ICANN has a track record of introducing new acronyms to describe already well-understood functions. The IANA has technically been called “Public Technical Identifiers” for years, but does anyone actually call it “PTI”? No, everyone still talks about “IANA”.
So I wanted to know:

Should we continue to call it “Whois” after the technical transition to RDAP is complete? Will you continue to refer to “Whois”? Should we change to a different word or acronym? Should the industry standardardize its language one way or the other?

There seems to be a general consensus that “Whois” ain’t going anywhere.
The responses, in no particular order.
Jothan Frakes, Executive Director, Domain Name Association

The term WHOIS won’t quickly leave the zeitgeist due to the decades of its use as a description of the lookup process. Lookup is somewhat confusing, as there is DNS Query lookup that works across the resolution system, and WHOIS Lookup that works to find registrant info via the registration system. As far as the term “Lookup” as the label for the new normal that is poised to replace WHOIS? It is better than the acronym “RDDS”. The general public probably would not assume that RDDS is a way to find out about a domain owner or registration information, because it sounds like it involves dentistry (DDS) if one is not following the ICANN world as close as insiders. Despite the evolutionary path the basic function seems to be on, it is likely that WHOIS continues to be what the nickname for the lookup process called, regardless of the support technology layers below it not literally being WHOIS.

Frank Schilling, CEO, Uniregistry

WHOIS IS DEAD, LONG LIVE WHOIS.
The echo of “Whois” will live long after Whois is dead and gone. The very nature of its replacement word “Lookup” ensures that the information hungry public will expect more fulsome data than ICANN intends the word to provide. There will continue to be services who try to engineer a Whois hack and provide accurate underlying data for paying customers. Whois is going to outlive all of us. Even those who diet, exercise, and eat organic food.

Dave Piscitello, Partner, Interisle Consulting Group

Just as most of the world isn’t familiar with new TLDs, most have no appreciation for the differences between Whois and RDAP. The term “Whois” is convenient, memorable, and embedded. It also represents a service to most users, not a protocol, so if we do “standardize” we should use “RDS”. While we sort out the disastrous effects of ICANN’s Temp Spec policy on both investigators and victims of DNS abuse, most parties involved with educating policy makers and legislators should continue to use Whois for consistency’s sake.

Christa Taylor, CMO, MMX

As the old adage goes, “Don’t fix what’s not broken.” While “Whois” may have lost some of its luster due to GDPR I prefer to retain the term — it’s simple, representative of the information it provides and avoids adding any confusion especially for people outside of ICANN. Employing standardized language is, of course, logical and after twenty years of using “Whois” it is the accepted term both inside and outside the industry.

Sandeep Ramchamdani, CEO, Radix Registry

First up, the transition to the RDAP system is much needed given the fundamental flaws of Whois.
It would help in placing some guardrails around customers’ privacy while still providing agencies such as law enforcement authenticated access that they need to do their work.
Whois is a major cause of spam and in the age where privacy is top currency, public, unauthenticated availability of personal data is unacceptable.
It should also smooth out inter-registrar transfers and lower customer frustration while moving out to a different service provider.
When it comes to its name, calling it “RDAP” or “Lookup” would be a branding error. It would cause some confusion and for those not intimately involved in the industry, who may find it hard to discover the new system.
In my mind, keeping the original nomenclature “Whois”, while making it clear that it’s a newer avatar of the same solution would be the way to go.
Can’t think of a better term than “Whois 2.0”.
Very easy to understand that it’s a newer, more advanced iteration of the same product.

Michele Neylon, CEO, Blacknight

Whois was originally a simple little protocol that allowed network operators to contact each other to address technical issues. It predates the usage of domain names or the “web”.
When domains were introduced the same concept was simply transposed over to the new identifiers.
However over the past 20 plus years the way that people viewed Whois has morphed dramatically. The first time I spoke at an ICANN meeting 12 years ago was on the subject of Whois!
Now the term is used both to talk about the technical protocol, which is being replaced in the gTLD space and the data that it is used to store and possibly display. We talk about “Thin Whois”, “Thick Whois” and so many other services and issues linked back to it.
Whois as a protocol is far from perfect, which is why replacing the technical side of it makes a lot of sense.
So with the world slowly moving towards a new technical method for processing domain registration data then maybe we should come up with another word for it. However I’m not sure if there’s much to be gained by doing that.
We are all used to the floppy disk icon to save a document, even if floppy disks are no longer used. With the term “Whois” being part of people’s vocabulary for the nearly a quarter of a century. it’d be pretty hard to find a simple replacement and have people adopt it widely. Sure, in the more technical conversations it makes sense to use more accurate terms like “RDAP”, but the average punter just wants to be able to use a term that they can understand.
Those of us who work with domains and internet technology in our day jobs might care about the “correct” terminology, but we’re in a minority. We all get excited when the mainstream media picks up on a story involving domain names or the DNS and even gets half of it right! If we conjure up some new term that we think is accurate it’ll take years before anyone outside our bubble is comfortable with it. So I don’t think we should.
We should simply accept that “Whois” is a term used to refer to domain registration data no matter what technology under the hood is used to handle it.

Rick Schwartz, domain investor

Hate to give the same basic answer to two questions in a row, but who cares?
Really!! Who cares? Nobody!
This is inside baseball that doesn’t affect anyone on the entire planet except for a handful of domain investors and ICANN etc.
Call it whatever you like just make sure it’s public info.

Facebook clashes with registrars after massive private data request

Facebook is on the warpath, testing the limits of personal data disclosure in the post-GDPR world.
Via an intermediary called AppDetex, the company recently filed 500 requests for non-public Whois contact information with various registrars, covering potentially thousands of domains, and is now complaining to ICANN that almost all of the replies it received were “non-responsive”.
DI has learned that Facebook is not only asking registrars for Whois data on specific domains it believes infringe its trademarks, however. It’s also asking them to provide complete lists of domains owned by the same registrant, along with the Whois data for those domains, something registrars have never been obliged to provide, even pre-GDPR.
It’s now pissed that almost all of its requests were blown off, with registrars giving various reasons they could not provide the data.
AppDetex is a brand protection services firm and ICANN-accredited registrar. It’s built an automated system for generating Whois disclosure requests and sending them to registrars.
Ben Milam, its general counsel, wrote to ICANN last week to urge the organization to come up with, and more importantly enforce, a framework for brand owners to request private Whois data.
The company has stopped short of filing formal complaints against the registrars with ICANN’s compliance division, but Milam said it will in future:

we do plan to file complaints in the future, but not until ICANN has (i) established proper disclosure guidelines for non-public WHOIS requests for the registrar base to follow, and (ii) implemented an enforcement process that will ensure that brand holder requests are being satisfied.

The letter says that only one registrar responded adequately, to three of its disclosure requests. That was FBS Inc, which I believe is Turkey’s largest registrar. Turkey is not in the EU.
One registrar on Facebook’s naughty list is Ireland-based Blacknight Solutions, which received three disclosure requests but did not provide AppDetex with the information it wanted.
Blacknight CEO Michele Neylon shared a copy of one of these requests, which he said was received via email July 2, with DI.
In my view, the request is clearly automated, giving the registrar a deadline to respond 48 hours in the future accurate to the second. It cites five Facebook trademarks — Facebook, FB, Instagram, Oculous and WhatsApp.
At Blacknight’s request, I won’t disclose the domain here, but it begins with the string “insta”. At first glance it’s not an clear-cut case of cybersquatting the Instagram trademark. It’s currently parked, displaying ad links unrelated to Instagram.
The email asks the registrar to turn over the full non-public Whois contact information for the registrant, technical contact and administrative contact, but it goes on to also ask for:

4. All other domain names registered under this registrant’s account or email address
5. All information in requests 1, 2, and 3 for all domains provided in response to request 4

This would increase the volume of Whois records requested by Facebook from 500 to, very probably, thousands.
This reverse-Whois data was not previously available via vanilla registrar-provided Whois, though it may be under successor protocol RDAP. Brand owners would have to use a commercial third-party service such as DomainTools in order to connect a registrant to the rest of his portfolio.
It’s debatable whether registrars will be obliged to provide this reverse-Whois capability on non-public data to brand owners even after RDAP becomes the norm.
The request says Facebook needs the data in order “to investigate and prevent intellectual property infringement and contact infringing parties and relevant service providers” and “to facilitate legal action against the registrant”.
Facebook says it’s entitled to the data under Article 6(1)(f) of the GDPR as it’s “necessary for the purposes of our legitimate interests, namely (1) identifying the registered holder of a domain name and their contact information to investigate and respond to potential trademark infringement and (2) enforcing legal claims.”
Currently, registrars are governed by ICANN’s Temporary Specification for Whois, a GDPR-related Band-Aid designed to last until the ICANN community can create a formal policy.
Access to non-public Whois data is governed by section 4 of the Temp Spec, which reads in part:

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 pursuant to Article 6(1)(f) GDPR.

In the absence of a formal ICANN policy, legal precedent, or specific guidance from data protection authorities, it’s not abundantly clear how registrars are supposed to comply with this clause of the spec, which may explain why Facebook is getting different responses from different registrars.
Neylon said that Blacknight responded to the disclosure requests by asking Facebook to produce an Irish court order.
He said the requests were overly broad, did not provide any contact information for the requester, did not provide a specific complaint against the registrants, and did not specify what privacy safeguards Facebook planned to subject the data to once it was handed over.
It seems Blacknight was not alone. According to AppDetex’s letter to ICANN, at least six other registrars replied denying the requests and saying:

complainant (Facebook) must utilize legal process of a subpoena or court order; complainant must file a UDRP action; complainant must file an action with WIPO; complainant must contact WIPO; and/or complainant’s request has been forwarded to the domain owner.

Milam said (pdf) that he expects the volume of requests to increase and that registrars’ responses will be forwarded to ICANN Compliance to help create a normalized framework for dealing with such requests.