1. ‘Thick’ Whois PDP Items for Review

2. Items for Review GNSO Policy Development Process ‘thick’ Whois Issue Report DT’s Mission WG Charter Template

3. GNSO Policy Development Process 3

4. 4

13. Further Reading 13 Annex A of the ICANN Bylaws - http://www.icann.org/en/about/governance/bylaws#AnnexA http://www.icann.org/en/about/governance/bylaws#AnnexA PDP Manual - http://gnso.icann.org/council/annex-2-pdp- manual-16dec11-en.pdfhttp://gnso.icann.org/council/annex-2-pdp- manual-16dec11-en.pdf New PDP Overview - http://gnso.icann.org/en/basics/pdp- process.htmhttp://gnso.icann.org/en/basics/pdp- process.htm

14. ‘Thick’ Whois Issue Report Overview 14

15. Background 15 On the recommendation of the IRTP Part B WG, the GNSO Council requested an Issue Report on 22 September 2011 Issue Report to consider any positive and/or negative effects that are likely to occur that would need to be taken into account when deciding whether a requirement of 'thick' WHOIS for all gTLDs would be desirable or not Preliminary Issue Report published for public comment on 21 November 2011

16. Public Comment Forum 16 9 contributions received Comments focused on: – Issues that should be included and/or amplified as part of the Issue Report. – Views expressed on the pros and cons of a ‘thin’ or a ‘thick’ Whois model. – Opinions on whether a PDP should be initiated or not. – Comments in relation to the scope of a PDP, should one be initiated.

17. Final Issue Report 17 Submitted on 2 February 2012 Report describes difference between ‘thick’ and ‘thin’ Whois, provides an overview of current situation of gTLDs as well as new gTLDs Provides an initial list of issues that should be considered to determine possible positive / negative consequences of requiring ‘thick’ Whois (e.g. consistent response; enhanced stability; enhanced accessibility; cost implications; privacy and data protection; data escrow; impact on existing Whois requirements) should a PDP be initiated

18. Final Issue Report (continued) 18 Also highlights other issues that should be considered should a PDP go ahead such as scope of the PDP, relationship with other Whois activities, resources Staff recommendation: the proposed issues are within the scope of the ICANN policy process and the GNSO. It is reasonable from the staff’s perspective to expect that further investigation of ‘thick’ Whois for all gTLDs would be beneficial to the community generally, as it would allow for an informed decision by the GNSO Council as to whether ‘thick’ Whois for all gTLDs should be required or not. ICANN Staff, therefore, recommends that the GNSO Council proceed with a PDP.

19. Initiation of PDP PDP was initiated on 14 March 2012, formation of DT initially delayed awaiting outcome of.com negotiations and workload issues Call for volunteers published on 23 July 19

20. DT’s Mission 20

21. Mission ‘Resolved, a DT will be formed to create a charter for a Working Group, which will be submitted to the GNSO Council for its approval’ (GNSO Council Resolution 20120314-1) GNSO WG Guidelines include Charter Guidelines (section 6) Charter Template to serve as a starting point – most sections are pre-filled based on GNSO WG Requirements, key section is ‘mission, purpose and deliverables’ 21

22. Questions 22

23. Thank You