Versions Compared

Version Old Version 54 New Version 55
Changes made by

Jean-Baptiste Deroulez

Jean-Baptiste Deroulez

Saved on

Key

  • This line was added.
  • This line was removed.
  • Formatting was changed.
(green star)Objective

Consistent with ICANN’s mission and Bylaws, Section 4.6(e)(ii), the review team will assess the extent to which the implementation of today’s WHOIS (the current gTLD RDS) meets legitimate needs of law enforcement for swiftly accessible, accurate and complete data by (a) establishing a working definition of “law enforcement” used in this review, (b) identifying an approach used to determine the extent to which these law enforcement needs are met by today’s WHOIS policies and procedures, (c) identifying high-priority gaps (if any) in meeting those needs, and (d) recommending specific measureable steps (if any) the team believes are important to fill gaps. Note that determining which law enforcement requests are in fact valid will not be addressed by this review. 

Background Documents

Further background documents may be found on the Review Team's overall Background Materials page.


(green star)Leader/Rapporteur: Thomas Walden

(green star)Members: Cathrin Bauer-Bulst, Chris Disspain, Thomas Walden, Lili Sun, Stephanie Perrin

(green star)Mailing-list archives: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/rds-whois2-lawenforcement/

(green star)Conference calls

(green star)Review Team Templates: see here


Subgroup Documents

Date

Document (Versions in Red are latest)

File

Subgroup Report

 

v1DOCX
Law Enforcement Survey Questions

 

v4DOCX

 

v3DOCX

 

v2DOCX

 

v1DOCX
Face-to-Face Mtg #2 Slides - Findings

 

v2PPTX

 

v1PPTX
Planning Questions

 

v1PPT
First Pass Document

 

v3DOCX

 

v2DOCX

 

v1DOCX

Open Actions/Requests

*To be provided once reasonable date is determined by appropriate subject-matter expert

Item #Source of RequestDate of RequestAction Item RequestAction Owner

Anticipated Completion Date*

Progress Notes
18#3

 

Subgroup members to react to updated survey text by Friday COB, sending any comments to the subgroup mailing list

ICANN Org to verify that invitees using personal not agency addresses is not a problem

ICANN org

17#3

 

Subgroup members to react to updated survey text by Friday COB, sending any comments to the subgroup mailing listSubgroup members

16#3

 

- ICANN Org to update survey text and share with the subgroup by 12 July, reflecting the following edits:

  • Fix typo in all questions involving a range so that the first option refers to less than instead of greater than (for example Q4, <10 should be first option)
  • In survey invitation, ask invitees to participate if you now or have ever used WHOIS in performance of your duties... 
  • Insert explanation prior to question 3 stating that the next several questions ask about your usage of WHOIS prior to May 2018
  • Add to the end of the survey: Ask if their usage of WHOIS has changed since May 2018 - if so, repeat questions 4,5,6,10,11,12 for WHOIS usage since May 2018, plus a general question allowing comment on recent changes to WHOIS
  • In questions 10-12, refer to WHOIS prior to May 2018, and then when those questions are repeated refer to current WHOIS (after May 2018)
ICANN org

15#33

 

Schedule a subgroup call as soon as possible to finalize and launch survey.Subgroup

13#27

 

ICANN org to provide an example of survey output to the subgroup to inform methodology related discussions.

ICANN org

Completed Actions/Requests

*To be provided once reasonable date is determined by appropriate subject-matter expert

Item #Source of RequestDate of RequestAction Item RequestAction Owner

Anticipated Completion Date*

Progress NotesCompleted ResponseCompletion Date
12#27

 

ICANN org to investigate on transparency requirements pertaining to surveys, as subgroups would like the survey link not to appear on review team public lists.

ICANN org

Email

 

11#27

 

Cathrin to update the draft survey based on input received and to share with subgroup.

Cathrin

Email

 

14#28

 

ICANN org to reach out to Thomas to clarify law enforcement survey logistics and request status updateICANN org

Email

 

10#2

 

Staff to provide support for staging draft questions, as the subgroup may request

ICANN org

Email

 

9#2

 

Cathrin to revise and circulate to the subgroup a draft list of questions

Cathrin

Email

 

8#26

 

Cathrin to draft survey questions for subgroup to review the questions

Cathrin

Email

 

6#25

 

Cathrin volunteered to substitute for Thomas for Face-to-Face Meeting #2 and provide assistance with subgroup draft report. ICANN org to provide a draft subgroup report to Cathrin.



 

4#18

 

Flesh out potential questions for a law enforcement survey

Law Enforcement Subgroup

Email

 

7

#26

Stephanie and Lili to be added to Subgroup 3 - Law EnforcementICANN org

 

 



1#1

 

Reach out to Lili to see if she would like to join subgroupThomas
Cathrin completed action itemEmail

 

5#22

 

Finalize briefing questions for OCTO and questions to be covered during informal outreach to LE.Subgroup
CLOSED - subgroup has deferred discussion with OCTOEmail

 

2#1

 

ICANN Org to consider whether a briefing from OCTO on interaction with LEA and perhaps DAR would be helpful as input.ICANN org
CLOSED - subgroup has deferred discussion with OCTOEmail

 

3#1

 

Provide Thomas will first cut answer at next step question, for Thomas to refine and share with subgroup by mid-weekICANN Org

 



 

Decisions Reached

SourceDateDecision
#2

 

On Law Enforcement Survey:

1) refine the WHOIS1 questionnaire to better address law enforcement respondents,

2) develop a refined list of questions to obtain feedback from the RT,

3) stage draft questions in a survey tool such as SurveyMonkey to test the survey,

4) run the same survey before and after GDPR changes to WHOIS

#1

 

Has your subgroup identified any needed briefings/resources? How will the subgroup conduct its investigation?

  • Outreach to LEA contacts to solicit input on needs 
  • Possible examples - GAC PSWG, APWG, SSAC members (John Levine)
  • Need to structure outreach in a transparent and accessible way
  • Start with informal outreach and then consider broader more formalized outreach
  • How will subgroup review identified documentation? N/A