30 August 2007
Proposed agenda and documents
List of attendees:
Philip Sheppard - Commercial & Business Users C.
Mike Rodenbaugh - Commercial & Business Users C.
Bilal Beiram - Commercial & Business Users C
Greg Ruth - ISCPC
Antonio Harris - ISCPC - absent - apologies
Tony Holmes - ISCPC - absent - apologies
Thomas Keller- Registrars
Ross Rader - Registrars
Adrian Kinderis - Registrars - absent - apologies
Chuck Gomes - gTLD registries
Edmon Chung - gTLD registries
Cary Karp - gTLD registries
Kristina Rosette - Intellectual Property Interests C
Ute Decker - Intellectual Property Interests C - absent - apologies
Cyril Chau - Intellectual Property Interests C
Robin Gross - NCUC - absent - apologies
Norbert Klein - NCUC
Mawaki Chango - NCUC
Sophia Bekele - Nominating Committee appointee
Jon Bing - Nominating Committee appointee - absent - apologies
Avri Doria - Nominating Committee appointee
15 Council Members
(20 Votes - quorum)
ICANN Board members
Rita Rodin - absent apologies
Bruce Tonkin - absent - apologies
Olof Nordling - Manager, Policy Development Coordination
Patrick Jones -
Karen Lentz - gTLD Registry Liaison
Marilyn Vernon - ICANN staff
Glen de Saint G�ry - GNSO Secretariat - absent apologies
GNSO Council Liaisons
Suzanne Sene - GAC Liaison
Alan Greenberg - ALAC Liaison - absent - apologies
Liz Gasster - consultant
Avri Doria chaired this meeting
Approval of the agenda
Item 1: Update any Statements of Interest
No updated statements of interest
Item 2: Approval of the GNSO Council minutes of 9 August 2007
Avri Doria, seconded by Tom Keller moved the adoption of the GNSO Council minutes of 9 August 2007
Kristina Rosette, Ross Rader, Cary Karp and Mawaki Chango abstained.
Decision 1: The Council approved the GNSO Council minutes of 9 August 2007.
Item 3: Report from whois WG
- Final Outcomes Report of the WHOIS Working Group
- Whois Working Group Charter
- Final Task Force Report on WHOIS Services
Philip Sheppard gave an overview of the WHOIS working group process.The working group ran from 25 April to 1 August, a little over the deadline which was to conclude its work by 30 July 2007. The group included 70 participants, the majority of whom were observers, that is, as
described in the WHOIS working group charter, "not members of or entitled to vote on the working group, but otherwise shall be entitled to participate on equal footing with members of the working group. In particular observers will be able to join the mailing list, and attend teleconferences or physical meetings". Most of the observers spoke for themselves or their organisation. No attempt was made to assess support by GNSO constituency or other interest grouping.
At the beginning three subgroups were formed, each with a separate chair, to work on the three topics in the terms of reference.
Staff then produced a composite report for the whole working group.
The group as a whole then revisited all the subject matter during a series of teleconferences and an extended face to face meeting in Puerto Rico. This led to a continued iteration of reports, which were updated according to those meetings.
No votes were conducted, agreed recommendations were supported unanimously or by a substantial
majority present at the relevant meeting when that item was discussed, and received insufficient objections to downgrade them in a validation report that followed. Objections that were recorded, went to a final few rounds of validation. This process was used to help assess whether or not opinions stated in the report were agreed, supported or alternative views. Alternative views were differing opinions expressed in relation to the characteristics of support or agreed categories, or opinions about alternate views, not necessarily contrary views.
The report identified implementation options which could be further explored after completion of the Working Group's task.
Philip then went on to give an overview of the WHOIS Working group report
In section 1, the objective was broadly stated as public interest - balancing privacy and harm.
Section 2 was a description of the Operational Point of Contact, (OPoC) who may be an OPoC, how does the OPoC relate to the registrant, the need for verification of the OPoC's email address, the need for consent to be an OPoC, proxy services, and the OPoC's relationship with technical and administrator contacts.
Section 3 described the role and the responsibilities of the OPoC which were covered under the headings, relay, reveal and remedy.
Section 4 related to compliance and enforcement.
Section 5 described the type of registrant and display implications, the universality of the OPoC and that the distinction should be made between legal and natural persons at the time of registration by the registrant themselves.
Section 6 dealt with access to undisplayed data records and described four ways of accessing WHOIS data: access to displayed WHOIS records, one time access, regular query based access to un-displayed data records, and full access to displayed and un-displayed records. Further, was there a need for access, who might do that, whether or not authentication was needed of people making those requests, and if the access services should be chargeable.
In section 7 the rejected options, the OPoC Accreditation by ICANN and the distinction between commercial and non-commercial registrants, were mentioned.
Section 8, Feasibility Studies, focused around unresolved issues which included cost related studies,
data privacy issues arising from the self-declaration of Accessors in the Access proposal described in section 6; mechanisms for a practicable, cost-effective, globally scaleable means of authenticating Accessors as described in section 6, information on gTLD registrants and registrations and the use and misuse of WHOIS data. It was noted that this would be a broadening of a study proposed by the GAC and a go beyond the focus on spam in the June 2007 ICANN SSAC study.
Item 4: Discussion on how to close this chapter of WHOIS discussions
There were three proposals before Council on closing the WHOIS discussions:
Avri Doria, Mike Rodenbaugh on behalf of the CBUC and Ross Rader.
Avri Doria proposed the following process for finishing the work on WHOIS
1 - Liz Gasster produces Draft Final Report combining TF report and WG report recommended date: September 13
2 - Council reviews draft on the email list and at meeting (if necessary) possible September 20 meeting
3 - Constituency Review - recommended dates: September 20 - October 4, 2007
4 - Incorporate Constituency comments by October 1, 2007
5 - Community Public Comment: October 15 - November 6, 2007
6 - Staff production of Draft Implementation Notes
requested by October 15, 2007
7 - Fact to Face discussion in LA on Saturday October 27, 2007
8 - Discussion during Public Meeting/Comment
9 - First meeting after November 6, 2007 - vote
Mike Rodenbaugh on behalf the Business Constituency proposed the following process and resolution:
"The BC agrees with the WG that further study of WHOIS issues is warranted, however we believe the recommended studies should be conducted in phases so as to potentially conserve ICANN resources in the
event that early studies show that later planned studies are not warranted or should be modified."
1. The GNSO Council hereby accepts the WG report and acknowledges the tremendous effort by WG participants and ICANN staff.
2. The GNSO Council particularly recognizes the WG chair for his adept leadership through a contentious and controversial WG process.
3. The GNSO Council does not consider the WG report as an adequate basis for any implementation of OPOC.
4. The GNSO Council requests that ICANN staff proceed with the 4 studies described in Section 8 of the WG report, as follows:
1. Proceed with study 4 on the characteristics of the Whois database first. This study should include a review and analysis of the different proxy services.
2. Following completion of study 4, and to the extent it reveals that there is a problem with the current Whois policy, ICANN Staff should proceed with study one - the cost/benefit analysis.
Completion of study 4 should help determine the parameters of the cost/benefit analysis, since the scope of the problem will be known and documented.
3. To the extent that the cost/benefit analysis determines that the benefits of changing the Whois policy exceed the costs, ICANN Staff should proceed with a third study that merges study two on self-certification (this should include an analysis of an ex post facto review mechanism) and study 3 on authentication (which should include
authentication of any parties with a legitimate interest in the data).
Ross Rader made the following proposition intended to serve as an amendment to the proposed CBUC motion;
1. The GNSO Council accepts the WG report and appreciates the efforts made by WG participants and ICANN staff in preparing this report.
2. The GNSO Council does not consider the WG report as sufficiently demonstrating consensus or agreement on substantive policy proposals.
3. The GNSO Council considers that the lack of consensus demonstrated through this open and inclusive working group is representative of the lack of agreement on key issues in this area of policy.
4. The GNSO Council recognizes that there is no standing consensus policy concerning the management of the Whois service and data provided to the public through that service by ICANN's contracted commercial operators, the registries and registrars. save and except the Whois Data Reminder Policy and the Whois Marketing Restriction Policy.
Be it resolved;
a) that the GNSO Council concludes the current PDP on Whois.
b) graciously thanks all of the volunteers, consultants, staff and others who have participated in the GNSO's examination of Whois policy over the last four years.
c) that the GNSO Council makes no specific policy recommendation to the ICANN board at this time concerning Whois or related policy.
d) that the GNSO Council recommends to the ICANN staff and Board of Directors that due to the lack of consensus on issues in this area that current contractual requirements concerning Whois for registries, registrars and registrants that are not supported by consensus policy be eliminated from the current operating agreements between ICANN and its contracted parties until such time that consensus policy in this area has been developed.
Avri Doria proposed posting an amended proposal to the Council list to be voted on at the next Council meeting on 6 September 2007
Item 5: Review of Action Items:
5.1 New gTLDs
Council would vote on September 6, 2007
5.2 IGO Follow up report
Olof Nordling reported that the work was advancing and a draft report would be provided to Council.
5.3 Domain Name Tasting ad hoc group
Mike Rodenbaugh reported that the group was advancing well within the timelines.
5.4 Ad hoc IDN-ccTLD group
The final draft document by the working group tasked with preparing responses to the request for comments regarding the ccNSO-GAC Issues Report on IDN Issues was provided to Council on 21 August 2007.
The discussion of the recommendations would be on the agenda of the Council meeting on 20 September 2007.
5.5 Reserved Names working group recommendations for new gTLDs.
The ICANN Staff Proposed Implementation Document on GNSO Reserved Names Working Group Recommendation was provided to Chuck Gomes, the chair of the Reserved names working group for edits, by Patrick Jones. Council will receive the report before the next meeting.
5.6 Los Angeles Workshop session on new gTLDs
Planning in progress by a small group under the leadership of Chuck Gomes for a 6 hour session on Monday 29 October 2007 in Los Angeles.
5.7 Registrar Transfer policy review.
Ross Rader reported that the by the September 20, Council meeting, staff would provide Council with a completed report and it would be on the agenda for the Council meeting on 20 September 2007.
Avri Doria commented that the high level agenda before Council could change as issues developed.
Item 6 AOB:
6.1 Kristina Rosette enquired about the status of the Council resolution on proxy voting.
6.2 Ross Rader enquired about the status of the Council resolution on Term limits for Councillors that was passed at the Council meeting on November 5, 2006.
Avri Doria adjourned the GNSO Council meeting and thanked everyone for their participation.
The meeting ended at 15:46 UTC.
Next GNSO Council teleconference will be on 6 September 2007 at 14:00 UTC.
Action items arising from the Minutes:
Item 4: Avri Doria to send to the Council list the amended version of the proposed process for concluding the work on WHOIS services.
Schedule a Council meeting for 20 September 2007
Item 5.4 : Discussion of the recommendations in the final draft report by the working group tasked with preparing responses to the request for comments regarding the ccNSO-GAC Issues Report on IDN Issues at the Council meeting on 20 September 2007.
5.5 Discussion of Reserved Names working group recommendations for new gTLDs at Council meeting on 20 September 2007.
5.7 Registrar Transfer policy review discussion at Council meeting on 20 September 2007..
Item 6.1 Update on the status of the Council resolution on proxy voting.
6.2 Update on the status of the Council resolution on Term limits for Councillors that was passed at the Council meeting on November 5, 2006.