|
4 November 2003.
Proposed agenda
and related documents
List of attendees:
Philip Sheppard - Commercial & Business users C.
Marilyn Cade - Commercial & Business users C.
Grant Forsyth - Commercial & Business users C. - absent, apologies, proxy
to Marilyn Cade/Philip Sheppard
Greg Ruth - ISCPC
Antonio Harris - ISCPC
Tony Holmes - ISCPC -
Thomas Keller- Registrars
Ken Stubbs - Registrars
Bruce Tonkin - Registrars
Jeff Neuman - gTLD remote participation * proxy to Jordyn Buchanan
Jordyn Buchanan - gTLD
Cary Karp - gTLD
Ellen Shankman - Intellectual Property Interests C.
Niklas Lagergren - Intellectual Property Interests C.
Lynda Roesch - Intellectual Property Interests C. - absent, apologies, proxy
to Ellen Shankman
Milton Mueller - Non Commercial users C. - remote participation * proxy to Chun
Eung Hwi
Chun Eung Hwi - Non Commercial users C.
Gabriel Pineiro - Non Commercial users C. - absent, apologies, proxy to Chun
Eung Hwi
Alick Wilson
Demi Getschko
Amadeu Abril I Abril
* proxy votes were noted in case of
connection failure
16 Council Members
Dan Halloran - ICANN Secretary
Audri Mukhopadhyay - GAC Liaison
Thomas Roessler- ALAC Liaison
Glen de Saint Géry - GNSO Secretariat
Real Time
Captioning
Quorum present at 14:05 local time, Carthage,
Bruce Tonkin chaired this
teleconference.
- Item 1: Approval of the Agenda
Proposed Items for
Any Other Business:
Amadeu Abril I Abril: Status of selection of new members
Marilyn Cade: Interim round of sponsored TLDs
Ellen Shankman: Enforcement issue
.
Agenda approved
- Item 2: Summary of last meetings:
September
October
Ken Stubbs moved the adoption of the minutes.
The motion was carried unanimously.
Decision 1: Motion adopted.
Item 3. Actions arising from last meeting
- Request to the Board to consider continuing 3 representatives per constituency
was on the ICANN Board agenda
for the Carthage meeting
- Status of constituency elections: Four out of six constituencies have
completed elections.
- Amadeu Abril I Abril proposed observer status for current constituency members
whose constituency elections would not be complete by the end of the annual
general meeting.
- Niklas Lagergren, representing the Intellectual Property Interests Constituency,
status was clarified, as a new Council member whose term expires at the end
of the annual meeting in 2005.
- Item 4. WHOIS terms of reference
from GNSO WHOIS Steering Committee
Divided into three areas:
(1) Restricting
access to WHOIS data for marketing purposes
(2) Review
of data collected and displayed
(3) Improving
accuracy of collected data
Bruce Tonkin, in summary stated that the WHOIS Privacy Steering Committee
had met since Montreal to consider the 25 issues highlighted in the Staff
Manager's WHOIS Privacy Issues report as well as discussions that arose from
the Montreal workshop. The constituencies had prioritized 5
issues that were published on the GNSO website. As a result the
committee divided the issues into three main areas:
- data mining of port 43 and interactive whois for marketing purposes
- informing registrants at the time of registration what data is collected
and how it would be made available to others, what data should be collected
and what data should be displayed
- accuracy
Discussion was invited on the terms of reference for each area which had
been defined.
Area 1: Restricting access to WHOIS data for marketing purposes
Minor changes in the language were proposed by Jeff Neuman, Marilyn Cade
and Chun Eung Hwi.
Bruce Tonkin proposed voting to accept the revised Description of Work
in area one.
The Description
of Work in area 1, Restricting Access to WHOIS data for marketing
purposes
Unanimously accepted by Council
Decision 2 :The Description of Work in Area one, Restricting Access to WHOIS
data for marketing purposes, accepted as the guidelines for starting the policy
development process.
Area 2: Review of data collected and displayed.
Bruce Tonkin stated that there were different views in the second area.
The description of work set out a first step in a short timeframe, which would
be to examine the current methods by which Registrars and their resellers
informed registrants of the purpose for which data was collected and how that
data would be released to the public. The second phase, would be to list and
analyze the existing uses of data elements captured at registration and achieve
a balance between the interests of those seeking good contactability and those
seeking privacy protection, which is a more controversial issue.
In the discussion, concern was expressed that the prioritization of 5
top issues by each constituency was not respected and that the description
of work went beyond identified issues.
Bruce Tonkin pointed out that it was the first time such a process
had been undertaken and those who felt the descriptions were inappropriate
could vote against them.
An additional task/milestone was proposed:
3. Consider options for limiting the amount of data made available for public
access, if any.
The purpose was to make a distinction between the amount of data collected
for contactability and the amount of data displayed to the public that was
causing a privacy problem.
Bruce Tonkin proposed voting to accept the revised Description
of Work in area 2
Review of data collected and displayed
22 votes in favour, 5 abstentions: Intellectual Property Interests Constituency,
Chun Eung Hwi and
Gabriel Pineiro.
Motion Carried (note Chun Eung Hwi subsequently indicated his support)
Decision 3: Description
of Work in area 2 Review of data collected and displayed, accepted
as the guidelines for starting the policy development process.
Area 3: Improving Accuracy of collected data
Bruce Tonkin summarized the tasks:
- collect information on the current techniques that registrars use to verify
that the data collected is correct. For example techniques to detect typing
errors by registrants intending to provide correct information. Survey approaches
used by cctlds to verify that the contact data collected is correct.
- collect information on techniques used by other online service providers
(where there is no physical contact with the registrant and no physical delivery
of goods or services) to verify that data collected is correct.
- create a best practices document for improving data verification based on
the information collected that can be applied on a global basis
- determine whether any changes are required in the contracts to specify what
data verification is necessary at time of collection to improve accuracy
- determine what verification mechanisms can be used cost effectively to combat
the deliberate provision of false information, and determine whether additional
mechanisms are necessary to provide traceability of registrants, or provide
for more timely responses for misuse of domain names associated with deliberately
false information.
Chun Eung Hwi proposed removing the quote from the OECD Privacy Guidelines
and protection and replacing it with the links only to the documents:
The work of several groups has been sited by parts of the GNSO community as
having a bearing on the need for improved accuracy, including the OECD
Guidelines for Consumer Protection in the Context of Electronic Commerce
(PDF), Implementing the OECD
Privacy Guidelines in the Electronic Environment: Focus on the Internet
(PDF), and the ICANN
Security and Stability Committee.
It was suggested that details concerning verification of or maintenance
approaches for deliberately false information should be removed and replaced
with an acknowledgment that there may be mechanisms outside of Whois to address
this issue.
Jeff Neuman proposed wording to add "costs" into verifying
that the collected information is accurate.
- collect publicly available information on the techniques used by other online
service providers (to verify that data collected is correct) as well as information
on the price of services offered by the online service provider.
Jordyn Buchanan pointed out that the task force should not be concerned
with deciding what information should be mandatory, but rather accepting that
mandatory information as stipulated in the Registrars Accreditation Agreement
should be accurate, thus it was proposed adding:
The Task Force will not consider the accuracy for data that is not mandatory,
and will not consider which elements should be mandatory.
Bruce Tonkin proposed voting to accept the revised Description
of Work in Area 3
Improving Accuracy of collected data
Unanimously accepted by the GNSO Council
Decision 4: Description
of Work in Area 3 Improving Accuracy of collected data, accepted as
the guidelines for starting the policy development process.
Item 5. Decision regarding WHOIS task force structure
Two options were discussed by the GNSO WHOIS Steering Committee, assuming
all three areas being studied at the same time, and multiple representatives
from each constituency to resource the workload
(1) A single task force with 3 working groups
(2) Three separate task forces
Bruce Tonkin, in considering the options open to Council, noted that in
the next 6 to 12 months, besides the WHOIS issues, the introduction of New
Registry services and the UDRP would have to be prioritized in terms of Council
and ICANN staff resources.
After some discussion the Council identified the following priority order
for issues in 2004: registry services, WHOIS, new gtlds, enforcement, and
UDRP.
Concern was expressed about the 90 day time limit in the policy development
process and the limited resources available to meet the deadline.
Bruce Tonkin, after considering the discussion, proposed forming three
groups, preferring not to set a deadline on each, but that each group reviews
the requirements, estimate a realistic timeframe taking into account their
resources, and if it would be longer than the 90-day period, Council could
seek approval from the Board for an extension to the time frame.
Bruce Tonkin, seconded by Thomas Keller, proposed:
That Three Task Forces be formed to look, at the three areas of WHOIS;
- that the Council has procedures in place to ensure that the three task forces
communicate with each other;
- that the council will request those task forces to come back to the council
with a timetable for achieving their work
- and that it will be in the context of the ICANN bylaws process.
Unanimously accepted by the GNSO Council
Decision 5: That Three Task Forces be formed to look, at the three areas
of WHOIS;
that the Council has procedures in place to ensure that the three task forces
communicate with each other;
that the council will request those task forces to come back to the council
with a timetable for achieving their work and that it will be in the context
of the ICANN bylaws process.
Audri Mukhopadhyay asked for clarification on the nature of the participation
of the GAC liaison on the task force.
Item 6. Motion for an Issues Report on New TLDs :
With reference to Section
II.C.8
"Continue the process of implementing new top level domains (TLDs), which
process shall include consideration and evaluation of:
a. The potential impact of new TLDs on the Internet root server system and
Internet stability;
b. The creation and implementation of selection criteria for new and existing
TLD registries, including public explanation of the process, selection criteria,
and the rationale for selection decisions;
c. Potential consumer benefits/costs associated with establishing a competitive
environment for TLD registries; and,
d. Recommendations from expert advisory panels, bodies, agencies, or organizations
regarding economic, competition, trademark, and intellectual property issues.
Define and implement a predictable strategy for selecting new TLDs using straightforward,
transparent, and objective procedures that preserve the stability of the Internet
(strategy development to be completed by September 30, 2004 and implementation
to commence by December 31, 2004)."
Motion proposed by Milton Mueller:
In order to facilitate compliance with Section II.C.8 of the Memorandum of
Understanding between the U.S. Department of Commerce and ICANN, the GNSO
Council requests that the Staff Manager produce an Issues Report on the creation
and implementation of a regularly scheduled procedure and objective selection
criteria for new TLD registries.
Bruce Tonkin noted that the agenda item and the motion arose from a process
over the last year where the ICANN Board had been considering, in the short
term, introducing a number of sponsored TLDs as an extension of the original
trial. The Council also noted that a formal policy development process should
be used to determine how to create completely new gTLDs in the future. Thus
the question was whether to request the ICANN staff to produce an issues report
or wait until the Board and the ICANN staff came back with what they were
planning to do. If the motion proposed by Milton Mueller were to be accepted,
the viability of producing an issues report within 15 days was questioned,
given the requirements for other matters and given that ICANN is planning
to set out a time frame for new gTLDs. It was also mentioned that the deadline
in the MOU for new gTLDs was September 2004.
Amadeu Abril I Abril proposed tabling the motion until the next meeting.
Bruce Tonkin, seconded by Marilyn Cade proposed a procedural
motion to table the motion proposed by Milton Mueller:
In order to facilitate compliance with Section II.C.8 of the Memorandum
of Understanding between the U.S. Department of Commerce and ICANN, the GNSO
Council requests that the Staff Manager produce an Issues Report on the creation
and implementation of a regularly scheduled procedure and objective selection
criteria for new TLD registries.
Unanimously accepted by the GNSO Council
Decision 6: Table the motion proposed by Milton Mueller until the next Council
meeting.
Item 9: Any Other Business
A. Interim round of sponsored TLDs
Bruce Tonkin referred to an issue raised by Jeff Neuman that the
Council's advice was to go ahead with the process of the limited introduction
of sponsored TLDs but the ICANN Board appeared to be either delaying or not
going ahead with the process.
Marilyn Cade emphasized the fact that Council was asked for advice
and all behavioural indications were that ICANN accepted the advice to move
forward with a sponsored round of gTLDs.
Bruce Tonkin quoted from the Preliminary
Board report of the October 13, Meeting
"...Board members remarked on the significant staffing constraints for
ICANN at present, and the foreseen lack of an ability for ICANN to both oversee
a round of new sTLD applications, and also invest significant resources and
time in gathering and analyzing data on gTLD issues.
The Board noted the lengthy list of tasks set forth in ICANN’s new MoU with
the Department of Commerce entered into on 17 September ...
..... In summarizing the views expressed on the topic, Mr. Cerf noted the
discussion among the Board did not seem supportive of moving forward with
a limited round of new sTLDs at this time. ..."
Discussion was in support of seeking clarification from the ICANN Board why
there was a possibility of suspending the limited introduction of sponsored
TLDs.
Philip Sheppard proposed to Reference the Annual
General meeting in Amsterdam meeting where it was
Resolved [02.151] that the Board requests the GNSO to provide a recommendation
by such time as shall be mutually agreed by the President and the Chair of
the GNSO Names Council on whether to structure the evolution of the generic
top level namespace and, if so, how to do so;
Dan Halloran put the full Preliminary
Board report of October 13, before Council
Preliminary Report Special Meeting of the Board 13 October 2003
Discussion of New sTLDs RFP Mr. Twomey reviewed for the Board comments of
broad interest received on the draft RFP, and considerations raised by the
community and Board members on the creation of new sTLDs and new TLDs generally.
Significant issues raised included whether to limit a new round for creation
of new sTLDs to prior applicants, or allow a wider participant group in the
application process, and what timeline for the consideration of new sTLDs,
and eventually new generic TLDs was feasible and responsible in light of work
to be done. A suggestion was that gTLD specific issues be set aside until
these issues could be reviewed and examined in detail, expert analysis could
be undertaken and community input received. Further, it was noted that the
nature of TLD relationships with ICANN was a structure under much debate at
present, and deserved a better understanding of the goals of the parties prior
to expanding the number of these relationships. Board members remarked on
the significant staffing constraints for ICANN at present, and the foreseen
lack of an ability for ICANN to both oversee a round of new sTLD applications,
and also invest significant resources and time in gathering and analyzing
data on gTLD issues.
The Board noted the lengthy list of tasks set forth in ICANN’s new MoU with
the Department of Commerce entered into on 17 September specifically called
for the development of a strategy and process for the creation of new TLDs
by September 2004. In particular, the board debated the wisdom in moving ahead
with the creation of new TLDs at this time, in light of the need to shortly
commence a full scale review of policy in this area. A brief debate ensued
among Board members as to the appropriate set of issues that should be included
in a review and development of policy relating to the creation of new TLDs.
Board members voiced concerns that many of the TLDs created during the 2000
round were still struggling with myriad acceptance and distribution issues,
and that these issues should be carefully examined and addressed to the extent
possible prior to considering the creation of new TLDs on a large-scale basis.
Discussion ensued among the Board members; in particular, board members focused
on the short time frame set forth in the new MoU for the development of strategy
and policy in this area, and concerns that any action on sTLDs at present
would detract from that effort, and possibly result in an discordant result.
In summarizing the views expressed on the topic, Mr. Cerf noted the discussion
among the Board did not seem supportive of moving forward with a limited round
of new sTLDs at this time. The Board did express a cohesive interest in moving
forward with development of strategy and policy on TLDs generally, encompassing
both sTLDs and gTLDs, on as expedited a process as feasible.
Board members noted an appreciation of the importance to the community of
this topic, and the intent to make a statement to the community on the Board’s
views on the topic as soon possible.
Philip Sheppard proposed the following motion:
The Council, as the bottom up policy development body for the gTLDs, requests
clarification as to the whether the Board is changing its Amsterdam 2002 commitment
to the community to go forward with the process for an interim round of sponsored
TLDs, and if so why. The Council expresses strong concern that the Board may
have taken a decision in this policy area without consulting Council.
The motion was passed unanimously by the GNSO Council.
Decision 7: The Council, as the bottom up policy development body for the
gTLDs, requests clarification as to the whether the Board is changing its
Amsterdam 2002 commitment to the community to go forward with the process
for an interim round of sponsored TLDs, and if so why. The Council expresses
strong concern that the Board may have taken a decision in this policy area
without consulting Council.
Item 7. Summary of top 5 UDRP issues
Bruce Tonkin stated that there was a report listing the top
5 Universal Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP) issues by constituency on
the GNSO website. The issues were fairly
spread, no one issue had more than three constituencies' support which indicated
that there was no strong issue requiring attention and that further work could
be undertaken after the WHOIS and the New Registry Services work was complete
in 2004.
Item 8. Budget update.
GNSO Secretariat to provide:
- report on current balance of GNSO account
- procedures in place by ICANN to manage the account on behalf of the GNSO.
The Secretary reported that after all payments had been made, the unencumbered
funds amounted to $24.923.63.
Bruce Tonkin stated that Council needed to make a decision who had
the authority to operate on the GNSO account that would continue to be managed
by ICANN.
Bruce Tonkin proposed that:
The GNSO Secretariat could authorize expenditure from the GNSO account as
authorized by the GNSO Council chair to a limit of $1,000 U.S.
The motion was passed unanimously by the GNSO Council.
Decision 8: The GNSO Secretariat
could authorize expenditure from the GNSO account as authorized by the GNSO
Council chair to a limit of $1,000 U.S.
Item 9: Any Other Business
B. Enforcement issue
Ellen Shankman stated that the ICANN President and some constituencies
had raised "enforcement" as a key issue to be placed on ICANN's
high priority list.
Ellen Shankman went on to say that it became clear many of the Board
members were concerned about using enforcement of the contracts because they
felt they did not have any alternatives and since pulling the contract was
the only option, they were reluctant to exercise such punitive measures.
In this context it was suggested that the GNSO Council looked at enforcement
and requested a policy development process with one of the aspects for consideration
the creation of a variety, and a menu of possible responses which the Board
could consider for action.
Bruce Tonkin thanked Ellen Shankman for the contribution and
proposed scheduling it for a future meeting.
Bruce Tonkin declared GNSO meeting closed, and thanked everybody
for attending.
The meeting ended: 17 :47 local time
Next GNSO Council teleconference:
Thursday November 20, 2003 at 20:00 UTC
see: http://gnso.icann.org/calendar/
|
