At a glance
During ICANN53, the ALAC unanimously passed a motion to adopt the Final Transition Proposal of the Cross Community Working Group on Naming-Related Functions (CWG-Stewardship). The ALAC submitted additional comments accompanying the motion.
Furthermore, two ALAC statements in response to public comment requests were drafted during ICANN53. In the interest of time, those statements were submitted pending ALAC ratification.
Recent Developments
· The ALAC co-charted the CWG-Stewardship effort and with the support of its Members and Participants on the CWG-Stewardship, as well as other interested parties, the ALAC duly considered the CWG-Stewardship Final Proposal dated 11 June 2015.
· The ALAC believes that the Final Proposal is significantly dependent and expressly conditioned on the implementation of ICANN-level accountability mechanisms by the Cross Community Working Group on Enhancing ICANN Accountability (CCWG-Accountability). If any element of these ICANN level accountability mechanisms is not implemented as contemplated by the CWG-Stewardship proposal, this CWG-Stewardship proposal will require revision and re-approval by the ALAC.
· The ALAC approves the CWG-Stewardship Final Proposal and its submission to the IANA Stewardship Transition Coordination Group and wishes to record the following comments:
· The selection of the two Post-Transition IANA (PTI) Board members by the Nominating Committee or similar mechanism should attempt to address geographic diversity without sacrificing competence.
· The success of PTI will be contingent on ICANN ensuring adequate operational and R&D funding as well as other resources.
· The ALAC reaffirms its commitment to continue to support the CWG-Stewardship in any and all follow-on activities related to the submission of this report.
· The ALAC agrees that all contact requests must be forwarded, including: Those required under theRAA, and from ICANN; all requests from law enforcement agencies and other third parties alleging domain name abuse. The ALAC asserts that requests from law enforcement agencies and 'other third parties alleging domain name abuse' should include government agencies (in the jurisdiction of the P/P provider) charged with the regulation of potentially criminal behaviour and/or consumer depredations. It should be left up to individual P/P providers as to whether other contact requests are forwarded (possibly excepting spam, etc.). The ALAC recommends that the classes of such contacts subject be clearly stated and published in the provider's terms of service.
· According to the ALAC, it should be left up to the individual provider as to the circumstances in which a contact request will be forwarded by other means. Equally, it should be left to the provider as to whether they are prepared to use other means to contact the customer and whether they are prepared to absorb the costs. In general terms, however, the cost should be on the party making a contact request. In any event, persistent failure to reach a customer by means properly noted in the terms of service should trigger re-verification of customer's contact by the provider in keeping with existing terms of the RAA. If the matter involves potentially serious criminal behaviour or serious misuse of the DNS, law enforcement agencies can become involved. In other cases, dispute resolution processes such as theUDRP can be used.
· According to the ALAC, it should be mandatory for accredited P/P service providers to comply with express requests from law enforcement agencies in the provider's jurisdiction not to notify a customer.
· If misuse of the DNS and/or illegal activity has been proven, most likely other and more severe responses will have been made including termination of use of the domain name by the party providing the privacy or proxy service.
· With regard to unwarranted publication of personal details, depending on the facts of each case, ALACstates there may be compensation for damage caused by a breach of contract through civil means.ICANN Compliance must be notified since such breach may also amount to a breach of the Specification.
· It should be up to individual providers on how they handle contact requests from third parties, as long as the customer is informed of the individual provider's policies on this issue.
· Proxy services can be provided by a registrant who, in turn, licenses the use of the domain name to their customer; it is the registrant's details that appear in the WHOIS database rather than the proxy service customer. The ALAC says in those circumstances, it may be possible for registrars (and their affiliates and resellers) to include in contracts with their customers (registrants), a requirement that if the registrant provides a proxy service, they will comply with the Specification. In that way, enforcement of specification requirements can be through that contractual arrangement.
· While this is the second review of At-Large, it is the first opportunity to review the RALO and At-Large Structures, which were not in place at the time of the first review, and it is now timely to review.
· Given the very heavy demands that have been placed on the time of ALAC volunteers in responding to the transition of the stewardship of the IANA function to ICANN, the ALAC says the extension of time of this review is very welcome. The extended timeframe will allow a period for self-assessment of keyALAC players, as well as participation of all the RALOs in identifying questions that should be part of the review, and key individuals whose insights and experience will be critical to the review. It will also allow time to assess the effectiveness of recommendations coming out of At-Large.
· That input will provide a clearer framework in which an independent examiner can be selected.