WIXLIB

Text#ICANN51

13 October 2014TextAll Things WHOIS:Now and in the FutureMargie MilamSenior Director, - Strategic InitiativesMonday 13 October 2014#ICANN51

Session:All Things WHOISText Introduction & BackgroundLatest WHOIS StatisticsHighlights of WHOIS activities: GNSO Privacy/Proxy Services PDP WHOIS Conflicts with National Law GAC WHOIS Concerns Brief updates on: Thick WHOIS Policy Implementation IETF RDAP Protocol Compliance Activities Internationalized Registration Data WHOIS WebsiteFuture of WHOIS - EWG ReportPanel Discussion & Public Consultation#ICANN51

TextIntroduction andBackgroundMargie Milam#ICANN51

BackgroundText ICANN Board directivesooImplement the WHOISReview Team recommended improvementsRedefine the purpose and provision ofgTLD registration data Expert Working Group (EWG) formed to assessthe need for Next Generation RegistrationDirectory Service (RDS) and identify a replacementfor WHOIS#ICANN51

TextLatest WHOIS StatisticsSteven Pedlow#ICANN51

TextWHOIS Pilot Accuracy Report#ICANN51

WHOISAccuracy Reporting SystemText Proactively identify inaccurate WHOISrecords Explore using automated tools Forward potentially inaccurate records toregistrars for action Publicly report on the resulting actions#ICANN51

NORCPilot Report – WHOIS AccuracyText Collaboration with: UPU, DigiCert, StrikeIron toexamine (registrant fields only): email, telephone numbers and postal addresses syntactic and operational validationFindings include comparisons of accuracy rates fromdifferent perspectives, including:oRegistrars under 2009 RAA vs 2013 RAAoNew gTLDs vs. prior gTLDsoGeographic Regions#ICANN51

SampleDesignText 100,000 total domains, oversampling new gTLDs New gTLDs (1.4 percent of domains, 25 percent of sample)oMinimum of 10 (or all if less than 10) from EVERY gTLDoTotal of 25,000 domains selected from 318 new gTLDs Prior gTLDs (98.6 percent, 75 percent of sample)oMinimum of 30 (or all if less than 30) from EVERY gTLDoTotal of 75,000 domains selected from 20 prior gTLDs Each gTLD is a separate systematic sampleoEvery kth record selected starting from the ith record#ICANN51

SampleDesign (cont.)TextRegionAfrica (AF)Latin %15015.0%20,1761,7848.9%1608.9%Europe (EUR)23,4172,0718.9%1868.9%North 82110,00010.1%1,00010.0%Missing (.)TOTAL/OVERALL 617100.0%10016.2%Two subsamples needed; systematic sorting usedDRAFT RESULTS

Scopeof PilotTextWHOIS Recordsrandomly selectedAddress Validation100,000 records from zone filesUniversal Postal UnionSyntactical (10,000 records)Operational (1,000 records)Phone ValidationEmail ValidationDigiCertSyntactical (10,000 records)Operational (1,000 records)StrikeIronSyntactical & OperationalApproximately 100,000 records#ICANN51

ARSReport RequirementsTexto Accuracy rates: new gTLDs and prior gTLDso Accuracy rates: registrars under 2013 RAA versus priorversionso Compliance rates: validation and verification of certainWHOIS Contact Data requirements, as listed in the WHOISAccuracy Program Specification to the RAAo Accuracy rates for registrars, registries and registrants locatedin the five ICANN Geographic Regionso Ranking of each ICANN accredited registrar and gTLDregistryo Trend analysis: historical data & improvements/decline inaccuracy rates#ICANN51

PreliminaryFindingsText Registrars under 2013 RAA have higher Operationalaccuracy on email addresses, but lower Syntacticalaccuracy on postal addresses New gTLDs and Prior gTLDs perform substantially similar –some differences are statistically significant, but slight Geographic Regions:§ Europe and Latin America/Caribbean have highestaccuracy ratings for postal addresses, North Americafor Syntactical telephone numbers§ Africa lowest accuracy ratings for Syntacticaltelephone/postal, Asia/Pacific for Operational email#ICANN51

AccuracyRating ClassificationsTextAccurateInaccurate No Failure Minimal Failure Limited Failure Substantial Failure Full Failure

AccuracyPercentages Across RAAs New vs.TextPrior 66.5Postal*82.485.782.482.482.4* Small Sample Size (1,000)DRAFT RESULTS

AccuracyPercentages - ICANN talOperational:EmailTelephone*Postal*All 0.952.069.0* Small Sample Size (1,000)DRAFT 9Europe99.985.991.290.065.693.6LatinNorthAmerica .785.592.081.8

SampleSizes for Ten Largest gTLDsTextTLD.com.net.org.info.xyz (New).biz.berlin (New).club (New).guru 2841,000451129894426241217109

EmailAccuracy for Ten Largest gTLDsTextTLDgTLD AgTLD BgTLD CgTLD DgTLD EgTLD FgTLD GgTLD HgTLD IgTLD 499.9299.8999.88TLDgTLD AgTLD DgTLD BgTLD JgTLD FgTLD IgTLD EgTLD CgTLD HgTLD 6588.9388.02

SampleSizes for Ten Largest RegistrarsTextTLDGoDaddy.com, LLCeNom, Inc.Network Solutions, LLCTucows Domains Inc.1&1 Internet AGGMO Internet, Inc.PDR Ltd.Wild West Domains, LLCPSI-USA, Inc.united-domains AG100,00010,0001,00028,431 2,7612637,243 331270301,887185181,633146141,40015417

EmailAccuracy for Ten Largest RegistrarsTextRegistrarRegistrar ARegistrar BRegistrar CRegistrar DRegistrar ERegistrar FRegistrar GRegistrar HRegistrar IRegistrar 9599.9599.9399.92TLDOperationalRegistrar F94.6Registrar D94.4Registrar I94.0Registrar A94.0Registrar E93.9Registrar C92.6Registrar G92.6Registrar H92.5Registrar B92.3Registrar J89.6

StudyImplications & Lessons LearnedText Definitions- careful examination neededoExample: alternative “syntactical” definitions produce differentresultsShould it include a check of the validity of domain name or just conformityto RFC requirements? Methodology for producing an overall score acrossperspectives Exploring Identity ValidationoComplexity & Cost ConcernsoWhat degree of validation is feasible/acceptable? Sample Sizes & Confidence Levels#ICANN51

Milestones& TimelinesTextPhase ISyntacticalPreliminaryFindingsICANN LAOct 14Phase IIIIdentity?FY17ValidationICANN 52Feb 15Full PilotStudy Report& PublicCommentOct 14Phase IIOperationalvalidationICANN 53June 15

AdditionalInformation and Next StepsText Preliminary Findings Paper posted here Full Study Report to be Published after LA Public Comment to be Open until 31 Dec 2014,seeking feedback onMethodology, Approach & Proposed Design of ARS Volunteer for Registrar ARS Working Group until1 Nov by sending email to:SI-Volunteer@icann.org#ICANN51

TextHighlights of WHOISActivities#ICANN51

TextPRIVACY & PROXY SERVICESACCREDITATION ISSUES (PPSAI)POLICY DEVELOPMENT PROCESS (PDP)Don BlumenthalPDP Working Group Chair#ICANN51

Board-initiatedGNSO PDPText Develop policy recommendations to guideICANN’s planned Privacy & Proxy ServicesAccreditation Program-WG chartered by GNSO Council in October 2013following Board approval of 2013 RegistrarAccreditation Agreement (RAA)2013 RAA contains temporary specification on P/Pservices (expiring January 1, 2017) WG on track to publish Initial Report for publiccomment in early 2015#ICANN51

Issues& Preliminary ConclusionsText Multiple issues categorized as General, Registration,Maintenance, Contact Points, Relay, Reveal,Termination Preliminary conclusions agreed on Registration,Maintenance, Contact Points, Relay (partial – onrequirements to forward electronic communications)WG currently focusing on Reveal: Recommended definitions: “Publication” distinct from“Disclosure” Standards may differ for different types of requestors (e.g.law enforcement, IP owners, anti-abuse queries, consumerrequests)#ICANN51

FurtherInformationText WG face-to-face meeting/community feedbacksession on Wednesday 15 October, 0815-0945,Beverly Hills Room:http://la51.icann.org/en/schedule/wed-ppsai WG Workspace:https://community.icann.org/x/9iCfAg The 2013 RAA including the temporary Privacy &Proxy a#ICANN51

TextWHOIS Conflicts with National LawJamie Hedlund, ICANN#ICANN51

WHOISConflicts with National LawText What is it? How does it differ from Data RetentionWaivers? Why was it developed? What’s going on now? Need more whoisconflicts-procedure-2014-05-22-en#ICANN51

TextGAC WHOIS ConcernsHeather Dryden, GAC Chair#ICANN51

TextBrief Updates Thick WHOIS IETF RDAP Protocol Compliance Activities Internationalized Registration Data WHOIS Website#ICANN51

TextThick WHOIS Policy ImplementationFrancisco Arias, ICANN#ICANN51

ThickWHOIS - StatusText Board adopted the GNSO PolicyRecommendations on 7 Feb. 2014 Two expected outcomes1. Transition from thin to thick WHOIS for .COM, .NET, .JOBS2. Consistent labeling and display of WHOIS output as perspecification 3 of the 2013 RAA for all gTLDs ICANN Staff currently working with the IRTooImplementation plan being developedConclusions of the legal review of issues associated with thetransition from thin to thick WHOIS expected in November 2014#ICANN51

ThickWHOIS – Next StepText Implementation workoFinalize and deploy a community outreach planoDiscuss implementation details with affected parties Community InvolvementoAll gTLD registries and registrars should be awareoInterested parties may get involved in the IRToThick WHOIS Implementation Working Session atICANN51: Thursday 16 Oct. at 8:30 in Constellation#ICANN51

TextIETF RDAP Protocol#ICANN51

Whatis RDAPText A protocol to replace (port-43) WHOIS Benefits:oInternationalizationoStandardized query, response, and error messagesoExtensibilityoDistributed sources (redirection)oDifferentiated accessoSearchability#ICANN51

Historyon Replacing the WHOIS ProtocolText SAC 051 Advisory (19 Sep 2011)o The ICANN community should evaluate and adopt a replacementdomain name registration data access protocolBoard resolution adopting SAC 051 (28 October 2011)Roadmap to Implement SAC 051 (4 June 2012)RDAP Community development within IETF WG since 2012Contractual provisions in 2012 RA & 2013 RAARDAP RFCs expected in the next few monthsPotential synergies w/thick WHOIS Policy implementation?#ICANN51

TextCompliance ActivitiesOwen Smigelski, ICANN#ICANN51

ContractualCompliance UpdateText Additional WHOIS requirements with the 2013 RAA relatedWHOIS Accuracy Verification and Validation, WHOISFormat and SLA Implemented WHOIS Closure Codes for communityreporting Implemented a WHOIS quality process to periodicallyconfirm compliance for suspended domains related toWHOIS Inaccuracy complaints Reduced WHOIS processing time by 5 days due toadditional system validation Publishing the Monthly Compliance NN51

Top5 Closure Reasons: Jun 2014 – Sep 2014TextWhois Format:Closure ReasonsWhois Inaccuracy:Closure ReasonsRegistrarverifiedcorrect11.8%Domain notregistered13.6%Complainant's d)16.3%Rr correctedformat53.7%Domainsuspendedor canceled42.0%Fixed issue14.6%Formatcompliant atsubmission9.8%Customerservice not inRAA12.2%Invalid Rr9.8%

WHOIS Inaccuracy – Quality Review ResultsTextDomain active/Transfer3%Domain deleted10%Domain stillsuspended81%Domain active/WHOIS changed5%Domain active/WHOISunchanged1% Reviewed WHOIS Inaccuracy complaints that were closeddue to Domain Suspended Out of 1,296 complaints sampled found 81% remainedsuspended#ICANN51

WHOIS Average Turn Around Time201718 18Avg TAT -142013 RAA WhoisInaccuracy Effective1512 12Mar-1429 2 2 21 2 1Jun-1358Nov-139 9 9 10 1010Aug-1415May-13Business DaysTextAvg TAT Received-ClosedAverage Business Days Turn Around Time Complaint Received by ICANN to Submitted to Registrar Complaint Received by ICANN to Closed#ICANN51

WHOIS Inaccuracy Impact of 2013 RAATextRegistrar Complaints by Contract YearMay 2013 – Sep 20000020092013WHOIS INACCURACYWHOIS FORMATWHOIS SLAWHOIS UNAVAILABLE

TextInternationalized Registration DataSteve Sheng, ICANN#ICANN51

Activitiesin this AreaText GNSO PDP on Translation andTransliteration of Contact Information WHOIS Review Team InternationalizedRegistration Data Expert Working Group Study to Evaluate Solutions for theSubmission and Display of InternationalizedContact Data#ICANN51