[dow1-2tf] Whois task force 1/2 draft minutes teleconf. 18 January 2005

["GNSO SECRETARIAT" <gnso.secretariat@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

[To: dow1-2tf[at]gnso.icann.org]

Please find attached the draft minutes from the Whois task force 1/2
teleconference held on January 18, 2005.
Thanks to Barbara Roseman, the minutes are very detailed.
If you would like anything changed, please let me know.

Thank you.
Kind regards,

Glen

Glen de Saint Géry
GNSO Secretariat

<!--#set var="bartitle" value="WHOIS Task Forces 1 and 2 teleconference"-->
<!--#set var="pagetitle" value="WHOIS Task Force 1 and 2 teleconference"-->
<!--#set var="pagedate" value="18 January 2005" value=""-->
<!--#set var="bgcell" value="#ffffff"-->
<!--#include virtual="/header.shtml"-->
<!--#exec cmd="/usr/bin/perl /etc/gnso/menu.pl 'WHOIS Task Force 1 and 2 
teleconference'"-->
<h4 align="center"><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><b>WHOIS Task 
Forces 
  1 &amp; 2 <br>
  <br>
  18 January, 2005 - Minutes</b></font></h4>
<p><b><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">ATTENDEES:<br>
  </font></b></p>
<p><b><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">GNSO Constituency 
representatives:<br>
  </font></b><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Registrars constituency 
  - Jordyn Buchanan - Co-Chair <br>
  gTLD Registries constituency - David Maher <br>
  Commercial and Business Users constituency - Marilyn Cade</font><b><font 
face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><br>
  </font></b><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Commercial and Business 
  Users constituency - David Fares</font><b><font face="Arial, Helvetica, 
sans-serif"> 
  <br>
  </font></b><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><font face="Arial, 
Helvetica, sans-serif">Internet 
  Service and Connectivity Providers constituency - Antonio </font>Harris 
</font><b><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><br>
  </font></b><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Registrars constituency 
  - Tom Keller <br>
  <font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Registrars constituency - Paul 
Stahura 
  </font><br>
  Intellectual Property Interests Constituency - Steve Metalitz <br>
  Intellectual Property Interests Constituency - Niklas Lagergren,<br>
  <br>
  At-Large Advisory Committee (ALAC) liaisons - Thomas Roessler </font></p>
<p><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><br>
  <b>ICANN Staff Manager</b>: Barbara Roseman</font> <font face="Arial, 
Helvetica, sans-serif"> 
  </font><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><br>
  </font><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><b>GNSO Secretariat:</b> 
Glen 
  de Saint G&eacute;ry <br>
  <br>
  <b>Absent:</b></font><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><br>
  <br>
  gTLD Registries constituency: - Jeff</font><b><font face="Arial, Helvetica, 
sans-serif"> 
  </font></b><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Neuman</font><b><font 
face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"> 
  - </font></b><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Co-Chair </font><font 
face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"> 
  - apologies</font><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><br>
  <font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Registrars constituency -</font> 
Tim 
  Ruiz <br>
  </font><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Nominating committee 
representative 
  - Amadeu Abril l Abril</font> <font face="Arial, Helvetica, 
sans-serif"></font><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><br>
  </font><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Intellectual Property 
Interests 
  Constituency - Jeremy Banks</font><br>
  <font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Non Commercial Users Constituency 
  - Marc Schneiders</font><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"> </font> 
<br>
  <font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Non Commercial Users Constituency 
  - Milton Mueller - apologies</font> <font face="Arial, Helvetica, 
sans-serif"></font><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"> 
  <br>
  Non Commercial Users Constituency - Kathy Kleiman</font><font face="Arial, 
Helvetica, sans-serif"><br>
  </font> <font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Internet Service and 
Connectivity 
  Providers constituency - Maggie Mansourkia</font><font face="Arial, 
Helvetica, sans-serif"> 
  - apologies<br>
  </font><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"></font> <font face="Arial, 
Helvetica, sans-serif"> 
  </font><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"> </font><font face="Arial, 
Helvetica, sans-serif"></font> 
  <font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">At-Large Advisory Committee (ALAC) 
  liaisons - Wendy Seltzer</font> <br>
  <br>
  <font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><a 
href="http://gnso-audio.icann.org/WHOIS-20050118-tf12.mp3";>MP3 
  Recording</a></font><br>
  <font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><br>
  <b>Agenda <br>
  </b>1. Discuss some of the proposals from Marilyn Cade for additional outside 
input, 
  and see what other people think are the appropriate steps to take for 
exploring 
  models of tiered access<b> </b></font></p>
<p><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">2. A short administrative 
discussion 
  about our two outstanding proposals. Particularly, how to set up a meeting 
with 
  ICANN staff for discussion of the National Privacy proposals. <br>
  <br>
  3. Discuss how to proceed since we didn't get models of tiered access and our 
  deadline has passed. Was this a useful idea, will it help progress the work 
  or should we find another way to proceed ?<br>
  <b><br>
  David Maher</b> commented that CIRA made an interesting proposal for limiting 
  information available to the the public and referred to </font><font 
face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">the 
  URL for the Canadian proposal that involved a "tiered access" approach.<br>
  http://www.cira.ca/en/Whois/whois_intro.html <br>
  <br>
  <b>Thomas Roessler </b>: ALAC did submit a proposal last year, and there are 
  some other historical submissions that seem on-topic. These can be 
resubmitted 
  if necessary. <br>
  <br>
  <b>Jordyn Buchanan</b> : That's good, and we should reflect on prior 
submissions. 
  I recall there was one from Tom Keller and the registrars. <br>
  <br>
  <b>Tom Keller Kelle</b>r: We could revisit the submission from last year. <br>
  <br>
  <b>Marilyn Cade</b> : In the Business Constituency, we don't have consensus 
  on tiered access. What we have consensus on is working on the issue and 
examining 
  it. Along with the consideration of other forms of tiered access, the 
Business 
  Constituency would like to see more examination of anonymizing services and 
  .post. Post is supposed to have some kind of tiered access, though it's 
clearly 
  not in place yet and is still in negotiation with ICANN. I'd like to ask any 
  of the CCs if they are currently using any form of tiered access, and maybe 
  look at other sponsored TLDs to see if they are using any form of tiered 
access. 
  <br>
  <br>
  <b>Jordyn Buchanan</b>: the intent of the solicitation of models is not to 
say 
  that we bless the idea of tiered access, or to choose a specific 
implementation, 
  we thought it would be helpful to be grounded in some specific ideas instead 
  of going over the more general issues, which we seem to have a good sense of 
  already. Also, we recognize that this is a very time-consuming task, so its 
  equally valid to look at what others have already done in this space, 
including 
  earlier submissions and existing CC or gTLDs activities. <br>
  <br>
  <b>Marilyn Cade</b>: regardless of how many contributions we get from members 
  of the Task Force, we need to do this data gathering and informing ourselves 
  of what others are doing. For instance, originally .name was going to charge 
  a $2 fee, but that ran into practical implementation difficulties with the 
credit 
  card companies. These kinds of lessons are important to review. <br>
  <br>
  <b>Jordyn Buchanan</b>: nothing to prevent us from doing both, and obviously 
  value in trying to review internal models and existing models. <br>
  <br>
  <b>Thomas Roessler:</b> Shouldn't let timing of getting proposals stop us 
from 
  moving forward with our work. Shouldn't let bad actors, especially the worst 
  of the bad actors guide all our decisions.<br>
  <br>
  <b>Marilyn Cade</b>: In Cape Town, the registrars were clear that they didn't 
  know who was using their anonymizer services, but it was also understood that 
  about 30% of registrars now offer such a service. This would be a significant 
  issue to explore and we should hear from registrars who offer the service and 
  how it works for them.<br>
  <br>
  <b>Steve Metalitz</b>: We may be talking past each other a bit. Anonymizer 
services 
  many not be operating differently from tiered access, so it would be useful 
  to look at how these operate. It seems important to look at how registrars 
who 
  offer this kind of service, especially to see how they understand it fitting 
  in with the RAA. <br>
  <br>
  <b>Tom Keller:</b> Anonymizing services do create a kind of tier, limits the 
  data to the registrar providing the service. We're talking about something a 
  little different, tiers in the Whois, which would provide different data 
depending 
  on which tier you qualify for. The current service doesn't really meet that 
  requirement.<br>
  <br>
  <b>Paul Stahura</b>: It's not consistent among registrars how to get to the 
  other tier, in anonymized data, it's not consistent across all registrars how 
  to get the hidden data. <br>
  <br>
  <b>Thomas Roessle</b>r: Part of the discussion is useful to see what models 
  are available now, but another way to do this would be to discuss the policy 
  issues in question. This does come to the question of who will provide the 
resources 
  for doing this investigation, and it will require resources to pursue 
further. 
  <br>
  <br>
  <b>Steve Metalitz</b>: Good point about resources, and Tom Keller is also 
right 
  that the different models would be useful to study because they're both right 
  that it's not uniform across the registrars and to see how the different 
implementations 
  work.<br>
  <br>
  <b>Paul Stahura</b>: Happy to discuss our implementation, and there's also a 
  financial incentive to the current model which should be explored. <br>
  <br>
  <b>Marilyn Cade</b>: In doing this examination, we need to be cautious about 
  asking for information that's publicly available. Not talking about pricing. 
  <br>
  <br>
  <b>Jordyn Buchanan</b>: Also sensitivity around uptake, might be regarded as 
  confidential information.<br>
  <br>
  <b>Paul Stahura</b>: Yes, there's confusion about uptake, including in the 
press 
  where there was a certain reason why uptake looked high for a certain 
registrar, 
  then the customer released the public whois on the names. <br>
  <br>
  <b>Tom Keller</b>: Anonymizers don't really seem the answer to the whole 
Whois 
  question. They are a service, but don't really get at the heart of the Whois 
  policy and what we can change about it. <br>
  <br>
  <b>Jordyn Buchanan:</b> People had questions about what was currently in 
place, 
  and what we could look at to get more ideas about tiered access. Instead of 
  opening up the broad scope of these anonymizing services as a task of the 
Task 
  Force, maybe look at one, or a few of the services as possible input into the 
  tiered access discussion. Within certain parameters, Enom seems willing to 
share 
  some information with us, and that might be a starting point for further 
discussion 
  of the anonymizing services as part of the larger discussion on tiered 
access, 
  not as a subject for review by itself. Let me suggest that we go down that 
route, 
  but also look at some other ideas that have been suggested. Cira, .post, 
.name 
  are all good places to start. Is anyone aware of other TLDs that operate a 
tiered-access 
  service?<br>
  </font><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><br>
  <b>Marilyn Cade:</b> I think a couple of the Latin American cc's do and I can 
  send an email to ask them if they do and if they'd discuss it with us. <br>
  <br>
  <b>Jordyn Buchanan</b>: Maybe get these other groups to do a briefing with 
us, 
  about their implementation and what seems relevant to the tiered-access 
models 
  they use. We can arrange this briefing and do some outreach to find others 
who 
  will participate. If any of you have contacts from TLD operators that you 
think 
  would be useful for discussing tiered access. Perhaps David could reach out 
  to the .post people, and I'll send an email to the .name people. Hopefully we 
  can do this in a timely manner, but as we've seen, it can sometimes take a 
while 
  to get everyone together. Once we have looked at these three services, plus 
  the anonymizer services, that should give us some places to start.<br>
  </font><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><br>
  <b>Jordyn Buchanan</b>: looks like Marc Schnieders has submitted that .DE has 
  some differentiated access.<br>
  <br>
  <b>Thomas Roessler</b>, Tom Keller, and others: looks like this is based on 
  a differentiation between how you access the info, via port 43 or port 80. If 
  you access the data via port 80 you have to click through an agreement on 
using 
  the data. Port 43 only gives you very basic data. <br>
  <br>
  <b>Jordyn Buchanan</b>: Well, this is another model that would be useful to 
  look at. Let's see how expediently we can put together briefings on these 
different 
  models. <br>
  <br>
  <b>Marilyn Cade</b>: I had suggested we include the chair of the SSAC in our 
  briefings. <br>
  <br>
  <b>Jordyn Buchanan</b>: And what are your thoughts on the objective of 
including 
  them? <br>
  <br>
  <b>Marilyn Cade</b>: The SSAC provided a report on including different 
information 
  in the display of data. Would be good to keep their perspective in mind. 
Also, 
  with CRISP/IRIS coming to agreement on a standard for implementation, we 
probably 
  also want to hear from the RIRs about tiered access. <br>
  <br>
  <b>Thomas Roessler</b>: How relevant is the RIRs views on tiered access to 
our 
  work. We have to work in a policy environment of gTLDs and the RIRs would 
seem 
  to take us into a broader community discussion that is off-topic from where 
  we need to put our energy. We're looking at a number of teleconferences and 
  we need to use our time well.<br>
  <br>
  <b>Marilyn Cade</b>: We shouldn't ignore other areas of work that are 
important 
  for us. We're often told by people who want to restrict access to data that 
  we can get the data from the RIR whois. I'm interested in how changes in the 
  display of data in both areas will affect how we can get to data. A request 
  for information from the Executive Directors of the RIRs would be very 
useful. 
  <br>
  <br>
  <b>Thomas Roessler</b>: Right now we seem to be in a limitless exercise of 
adding 
  more input. We need to balance input with coming up with a policy. We can't 
  follow every source of information. <br>
  <br>
  <b>Jordyn Buchanan</b>: I see these various TLD briefings as being one call, 
  if we can get everyone lined up, and get a brief 10-15 minute description of 
  the various implementations along with some questions and answers. Having 
them 
  back-to-back would be very useful, especially in getting at the nuances of 
differences 
  between them. <br>
  <br>
  <b>Steve Metalitz</b>: Would be useful to get a response from the RIRs, where 
  they may have already implemented something like tiered access. It's a 
second-order 
  question, where the first order is talking to people who have already 
implemented 
  some kind of tiered access. <br>
  <br>
  <b>Jordyn Buchanan</b>:Yes, should talk to people with concrete 
implementations 
  of tiered access first. If there's some places where they have good ideas we 
  may want to take that under advisement. As for SSAC, it might be more useful 
  to have a dialogue with them when we're closer to having proposals. <br>
  <br>
  <b>Marilyn Cade</b>: I agree, doesn't have to be now, can be later. <br>
  <br>
  <b>Planning ahead:<br>
  <br>
  Jordyn Buchanan</b>: Want to spend the last bit of the call on our two prior 
  proposals: (most of the work seems to be for me and Jeff Neuman. )<br>
  <br>
  a. <b>first is improving consent.</b> We've issued a call for constituency 
statements, 
  which are due January 31, 2005. So far we don't have any in yet. No further 
  update until then. <br>
  b. <b> national privacy laws,</b> staff made some comments and we thought it 
  would be productive to have additional dialog to discuss their response. <br>
  <br>
  <b>Action: schedule call for this purpose with Senior staff and task force<br>
  </b><b>Barbara Roseman</b>,<b> Jordyn Buchanan, Jeff Neuman</b><br>
  <br>
  <b>Barbara Roseman</b>: Yes, Paul Verhoef also said he wanted to get this 
scheduled, 
  so let's see if we can get it done. Ideally, during a regular call.<br>
  </font><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><br>
  <b>Marilyn Cade</b>: look at scheduling keeping the ICANN meeting in 
Argentina 
  in mind. <br>
  <br>
  <b>Action: explore calendar and see what the task force will review for the 
  Argentina meetings.</b><br>
  <b>Glen, Jordyn Buchanan, Jeff Neuman</b><br>
  </font></p>
<p><b><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Thanks to Barbara Roseman's 
notes, 
  these minutes are so detailed.</font></b><font face="Arial, Helvetica, 
sans-serif"><br>
  <br>
  <b>Jordyn Buchanan<font size="3"> </font></b></font><font face="Arial, 
Helvetica, sans-serif"><b><font size="3">thanked 
  everyone for their presence and participation.<br>
  The call ended at 12:00 noon EST, 18:00 CET<br>
  <br>
  Next Whois Task Force 1/2 Call: 25 </font></b><font size="3"><b>January 
2005<br>
  see: </b><a href="http://gnso.icann.org/calendar/";>GNSO calendar</a><b><br>
  </b> <b><br>
  <br>
  </b></font><b><br>
  </b></font></p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>