[council] GNSO Council resolutions 4 March 2009
- To: "council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx" <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: [council] GNSO Council resolutions 4 March 2009
- From: Glen de Saint Géry <Glen@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 5 Mar 2009 07:42:00 -0800
- Accept-language: fr-FR, en-US
- Acceptlanguage: fr-FR, en-US
- List-id: council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Sender: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Thread-index: Acmc+H74yR0Iv3x7Rsum0286K30GuwAqzfew
- Thread-topic: GNSO Council resolutions 4 March 2009
Ahead of the formal minutes, please find the resolutions passed at the GNSO
Open Council meeting in Mexico City on Wednesday, 4 March 2009. Motion 2, the
Registrar Accreditation Agreement motion, passed unanimously as the one
absentee vote in favour has been recorded.
1. WHOIS Motion
Proposed by: Chuck Gomes
Seconded by: Tony Holmes, Olga Cavalli, Kristina Rosette
GNSO Council motion to pursue cost estimates of selected Whois studies.
In Oct-2007, the Generic Names Supporting Organization (GNSO) Council concluded
that a comprehensive, objective and quantifiable understanding of key factual
regarding the gTLD Whois system would benefit future GNSO policy development
Before defining the details of these studies, the Council solicited suggestions
community for specific topics of study on WHOIS. Suggestions were submitted
(http://forum.icann.org/lists/WHOIS-comments-2008/ ) and ICANN staff prepared a
'Report on Public Suggestions on Further Studies of WHOIS', dated 25-Feb-2008
On 28-Mar-2008 the GNSO Council resolved to form a WHOIS Study Working Group to
proposed list, if any, of recommended studies for which ICANN staff will be
asked to provide
cost estimates to the Council
The WHOIS Study WG did not reach consensus regarding further studies, and on
the GNSO Council resolved to form another group of volunteers (WHOIS Hypotheses
review the 'Report on Public Suggestions on Further Studies of WHOIS' and the
on WHOIS studies.
This WG was tasked to prepare a list of hypotheses to be tested, and to deliver
a report to the Council. The Whois Hypotheses WG delivered its report to the
Council on 26-Aug-2008.
On 29-Oct-2008 the Registry constituency circulated its recommendations for
and considering further Whois studies.
On 5 November 2008 the GNSO Council decided to convene a series of special
meetings on Whois
studies, and to solicit further constituency views assessing both the priority
level and the
feasibility of the various Whois studies that have been proposed, with the goal
which studies, if any, should be assessed for cost and feasibility. The Council
ask staff to perform that assessment, and, following that assessment, the
Council would decide
which studies should be conducted. Council Chair Avri Doria convened a
volunteer group of
Councilors and interested constituency members to draft a resolution regarding
any, for which cost estimates should be obtained. This 'Whois Study Drafting
tracked on a wiki page at whois discussion.
The Whois Study Drafting Team further consolidated studies and data requested
by the GAC.
For each of the consolidated studies, constituencies were invited to assign
priority rank and
assess feasibility.5 constituencies provided the requested rankings, while 2
(NCUC and Registrars) indicated that no further studies were justified.The GAC
invited to assign priorities, but no reply was received as of 22-Jan-2009.
The Drafting Team determined that the six studies with the highest average
scores should be the subject of further research to determine feasibility and
estimates. The selection of these initial studies does not foreclose further
of the remaining studies.
Council requests Staff to conduct research on feasibility and cost estimates
Whois studies listed below, and report its findings to Council as soon as
noting that Staff need not fulfill the full request at once but may fulfill the
requirements in stages.
Group A (Studies 1, 14, 21 and GAC data set 2):
Study 1 hypothesis: Public access to WHOIS data is responsible for a material
of cases of misuse that have caused harm to natural persons whose registrations
have a commercial purpose.
Study 14 hypothesis: The Whois database is used only to a minor extent to
spam and other such illegal or undesirable activities.
Study 21 and GAC data set 2 hypothesis: There are significant abuses caused by
display of Whois. Significant abuses would include use of WHOIS data in spam
abuse of personal data, loss of reputation or identity theft, security costs
and loss of data.http://forum.icann.org/lists/whois-comments-2008/msg00026.html
Study 11 hypothesis: The use of non-ASCII character sets in Whois records will
from data accuracy and readability.
Group B (Studies 13, 17, GAC 1 & GAC 11)
Study 13 hypotheses: a) The number of proxy registrations is increasing when
with the total number of registrations; b) Proxy and private WHOIS records
investigation and disabling of phishing sites, sites that host malware, and
perpetrating electronic crime as compared with non-proxy registrations and
registrations; c) Domain names registered using proxy or privacy services are
associated with phishing, malware, and other electronic crime as compared with
registrations or non-private registrations.
Study 17 hypothesis: The majority of domain names registered by proxy/privacy
are used for abusive and/or illegal purposes.
GAC Study 1 hypothesis: The legitimate use of gTLD WHOIS data is curtailed or
by the use of proxy and privacy registration services.
GAC Study 11 hypothesis: Domain names registered using proxy or privacy
disproportionately associated with fraud and other illegal activities as
compared with non-proxy registrations.
Group E (Studies 3 & 20)
Study 3 hypothesis: Some proxy and privacy services are not revealing
data when presented with requests that provide reasonable evidence of
actionable harm, as
required to avoid liability under registration agreement provisions that
requirements of RAA 220.127.116.11.
Study 20 hypothesis: Some proxy and privacy services do not promptly and
information requests to and from registrants/licensees.
Group C (GAC Studies 5 & 6)
GAC Study 5 hypothesis: A significant percentage of registrants who are legal
are providing inaccurate Whois data that implies they are natural persons.
percentage of registrants with such inaccuracies will vary significantly
depending upon the
nation or continent of registration.
GAC Study 6 hypothesis: A significant percentage of registrants who are
with a commercial purpose are providing inaccurate Whois data that implies they
without commercial purposes. Furthermore the percentage of registrants with
will vary significantly depending upon the nation or continent of registration.
Group D (Studies 18, 19, GAC 9 & GAC 10)
Study 18 hypothesis: The majority of domain names registered by proxy/privacy
are used for commercial purposes and not for use by natural persons.
Study 19 hypothesis: A disproportionate share of requests to reveal the
registrants who use proxy services is directed toward registrations made by
natural persons. http://forum.icann.org/lists/whois-comments-2008/msg00022.html
GAC Study 9 hypothesis: A growing and significant share of proxy/privacy
are legal persons.
GAC Study 10 hypothesis: A growing and significant share of domains that are
using proxy/privacy services are used for commercial purposes.
Council further requests that Staff refer to original study submissions (posted
at http://forum.icann.org/lists/whois-comments-2008/ ), for statements of how
study results could lead to an
improvement in Whois policy. Many submitters also described the type of
including data elements, data sources, population to be surveyed, and sample
Staff is invited to pursue creative ways to develop cost estimates for these
studies, including re-formulations of the suggested hypotheses.At any time,
Staff may come back to Council with questions regarding study hypotheses.
Staff is also requested to consider the results obtained
from the ALAC on its priorities for studies and include any of studies that,
based on the same prioritization, fit in the groups designated in this
Council further requests that Staff communicate the resolution to GAC
it has been approved.
The motion passed unanimously by voice vote:
Chuck Gomes, Jordi Iparraguirre (Registry constituency); Greg Ruth, Tony
Harris, Tony Holmes (ISP); Mike Rodenbaugh, Philip Sheppard, Zahid Jamil
(CBUC); Tim Ruiz, Stéphane van Gelder, Adrian inderis (Registrars) Olga
Cavalli, Avri Doria, Terry Davis -remote participation (NCA); Mary Wong, Carlos
Souza, Bill Drake (NCUC) Kristina Rosette, Cyril Chua - remote (IPC).
Absent: Edmon Chung (Registry constituency), Ute Decker (IPC).
2. Registrar Accreditation Agreement (RAA) motion
Motion made by Tim Ruiz
Seconded by Kristina Rosette
Whereas, the Registrar Accreditation Agreement (RAA) has not been amended since
May 2001, and ICANN has undertaken a lengthy consultative process related to
amending the RAA, including several public comment periods and consultations;
Whereas, the proposed changes to the RAA include important compliance and
enforcement tools for ICANN; The Council wishes to approve the set of proposed
amendments as quickly as possible so that the ICANN Board may review them, and
if approved then implement them as quickly as possible; and
The Council would like to proceed on the drafting of a charter identifying
registrant rights that registrars would be obliged to link to, as contemplated
in the set of amendments;
The Council would like a specific process and timeline to move forward with
additional potential amendments to the RAA; and
The Registrar Constituency is supportive of these efforts and is willing to
participate on a good faith basis on anticipated next steps.
The GNSO Council supports the RAA amendments as documented in
and recommends to the Board that they be adopted at its meeting of March 6,
Within 30 days of Board approval of the set of amendments, representatives from
the GNSO community and the ALAC shall be identified to participate in drafting
a registrant rights charter, as contemplated by the amendments and the current
GNSO Council discussions, with support from ICANN staff. A draft charter shall
be completed no later than July 31 2009; and
Within 30 days of Board approval of the set of amendments, the GNSO Council
will form a Drafting Team to discuss further amendments to the RAA and to
identify those on which further action may be desirable. The Drafting Team
should endeavor to provide its advice to the Council and ICANN staff no later
than July 31, 2009.
Motion passed unanimously by roll call vote.
27 Votes in favour
Chuck Gomes, Jordi Iparraguirre, Edmon Chung (Registry constituency) Tim Ruiz,
Stéphane van Gelder, Adrian Kinderis (Registrars) 2 votes each; Greg Ruth, Tony
Harris, Tony Holmes (ISP); Mike Rodenbaugh, Philip Sheppard, Zahid Jamil
(CBUC); Olga Cavalli, Avri Doria, Terry Davis -remote participation (NCA); Mary
Wong, Carlos Souza, Bill Drake (NCUC) Kristina Rosette, Cyril Chua - remote
(IPC) one vote each.
Absentee ballot: Ute Decker (IPC) one vote in favour.
Glen de Saint Géry