"Thank you Steve [DelBianco], I understand and appreciate the perspective you are coming from, that is from my perspective completely unacceptable, it is a passing of the ball, I understand you are operating under pressure, and I understand that you really didn't want to think hard about it, but nonetheless it is a destructive and inappropriate thing to do." -- ICANN Board Chairman Steve Crocker to the CCWG-Accountability's Steve DelBianco, at the CCWG Webinar Presentation on the Draft Report for Public Comment (August 4, 2015; emphasis added).
Who would have thought the Affirmation of Commitments (AoC) WHOIS Reviews would have been the "hot" topic at the first Webinar held Tuesday on the draft proposal by the CCWG on Enhancing ICANN Accountability? ICANN Board Chairman Steve Crocker was in attendance and unloaded on the proposal insofar as it incorporates the AoC WHOIS Reviews into ICANN's bylaws.
As of this posting, the transcript from the Webinar was not posted, but the audio and Adobe session are posted and available for review (the "Steve Crocker part" runs from about 55:50 to 1:00:15 on the audio recording). A female voice utters "Wow" after Crocker had finished, which you see referenced in the Chat window text transcript (along with a subsequent exchange between Crocker and DelBianco):
Steve Crocker: (13:55) I have a question re the AoC reviews
Avri Doria: (14:00) an ATRT is schedule for 2016, or at least should be.
Greg Shatan: (14:01) +1 to the "wow" reaction at the end of that [Steve Crocker's] statement.
Jordan Carter (.nz, WP1 rapporteur): (14:01) I think it would be destructive and inappropriate for the CCWG to set itself up as the "fixit" body, trying to sort out all of ICANN's issues and all the specific problems that have been identified in the course of our work. As a group I think we have a lot of confidence in the ATRT3's ability to solve this problem.
McTim: (14:02) +1 to Jordan
Alan Greenberg (ALAC): (14:02) ATRT3 will likely have far less expertise on WHOIS issues than the CCWG does
Steve DelBianco [GNSO - CSG]: (14:02) Under the same AOC language, ICANN is about to begin another WHOIS review. Will that be destructive? I don't think so.
Steve Crocker: (14:04) @Steve DelB: Consistent with my comments, the answer to your question is yes, another whois review on the existing terms would be wrong and destructive. (emphasis added)
"9. Recognizing that ICANN will evolve and adapt to fulfill its limited, but important technical mission of coordinating the DNS, ICANN further commits to take the following specific actions together with ongoing commitment reviews specified below:
"..... 9.3.1 ICANN additionally commits to enforcing its existing policy relating to WHOIS, subject to applicable laws. Such existing policy requires that ICANN implement measures to maintain timely, unrestricted and public access to accurate and complete WHOIS information, including registrant, technical, billing, and administrative contact information. One year from the effective date of this document and then no less frequently than every three years thereafter, ICANN will organize a review of WHOIS policy and its implementation to assess the extent to which WHOIS policy is effective and its implementation meets the legitimate needs of law enforcement and promotes consumer trust. The review will be performed by volunteer community members and the review team will be constituted and published for public comment, and will include the following (or their designated nominees): the Chair of the GAC, the CEO of ICANN, representatives of the relevant Advisory Committees and Supporting Organizations, as well as experts, and representatives of the global law enforcement community, and global privacy experts. Composition of the review team will be agreed jointly by the Chair of the GAC (in consultation with GAC members) and the CEO of ICANN. Resulting recommendations of the reviews will be provided to the Board and posted for public comment. The Board will take action within six months of receipt of the recommendations.
10. To facilitate transparency and openness in ICANN's deliberations and operations, the terms and output of each of the reviews will be published for public comment. Each review team will consider such public comment and amend the review as it deems appropriate before it issues its final report to the Board...."
CCWG-Accountability, @SDCrocker: Whois review has fundamental flaw & shouldn’t be perpetuated.
— Samantha Dickinson (@sgdickinson) August 4, 2015
Webinars of the CCWG-Accountability and the IANA Stewardship Transition Coordination Group proposals will continue over the next few days, more info: ICANN Accountability, IANA Transition, Proposals, Comments, Webinars