WHOIS Task Force
6 September 2005 - MinutesATTENDEES:
GNSO Constituency representatives:
Jordyn Buchanan - Chair
gTLD Registries constituency - David Maher
gTLD Registries constituency - Tuli Day
gTLD Registries constituency - Ken Stubbs - apologies
Registrars constituency - Ross Rader
Registrars constituency - Tim Ruiz (alternate)
Intellectual Property Interests Constituency - Steve Metalitz
Intellectual Property Interests Constituency - Niklas Lagergren
Internet Service and Connectivity Providers constituency - Tony Harris
Non Commercial Users Constituency - Milton Mueller
Commercial and Business Users Constituency - David Fares
Commercial and Business Users constituency - Marilyn Cade
Commercial and Business Users Constituency - Sarah Deutsch
Liaisons
At-Large Advisory Committee (ALAC) liaisons - Wendy Seltzer - absent - apologies
GAC Liaison - Suzanne Sene - absent - apologies
ICANN Staff:
Olof Nordling - Manager, Policy Development Coordination - absent - apologies
Maria Farrell Farrell - ICANN GNSO Policy Officer - absent - apologies
GNSO Secretariat - Glen de Saint Géry
Absent:
Registrars constituency - Paul Stahura
Registrars constituency - Tom Keller
Internet Service and Connectivity Providers constituency - Maggie Mansourkia - apologies
Internet Service and Connectivity Providers constituency - Greg Ruth
gTLD Registries constituency - Phil Colebrook
Non Commercial Users Constituency - Kathy Kleiman
Non Commercial Users Constituency - Frannie Wellings MP3 Recording
Preliminary Summary
Agenda:
Item 1: Voting on amendments to recommendation 2 (conflicts with national data
protection laws)
Item 2: Purpose of WHOIS
Item 1: Voting on amendments to recommendation 2 (conflicts with national data
protection laws) A straw pole was held and the task force was asked to vote on 7 revisions to the Conflicts Recommendation proposed by various constituencies.
Revision 1
There was agreement on language that makes exceptions applicable to all registrars that the conflict applies to (as opposed to all registrars, or to just the registrar making the request). Paragraph 2 (c) of the policy recommendation would be changed to the following (insertion marked in bold italics): c. Providing a mechanism for the recognition, if appropriate, in circumstances where the conflict cannot be otherwise resolved, of an exception to contractual obligations to those registries/registrars to which the specific conflict applies with regard to collection, display and distribution of personally identifiable data via Whois; and Similarly, sub-paragraph iv of Step Three would be replaced with the following (changes marked in bold italics again): Recommendation of how the issue should be resolved, which may include whether ICANN should provide an exception for those registrars/ registries to which the specific conflict applies from one or more identified WHOIS contractual provisions. The report should include a detailed justification of its recommendation, including the anticipated impact on the operational stability, reliability, security, or global interoperability of the Internet's unique identifier systems if the recommendation were to be approved or denied.
Options:
1.Change nothing,
2. Accept language circulated on the list between 30 August and 6 Sept.
3. Add question in the report and ask for public comment during the public comment period. Straw pole vote Registry C against (David Maher, Tuli Day, Ken Stubbs,)
Registrars C against (Tim Ruiz, only registrar on call, Jordyn does not vote)
4 votes against
NCUC Accept (Milton Mueller)
CBUC Accept (Marilyn Cade, David Fares, Sarah Deutsch)
IPC Accept (Steve Metalitz, Niklas Lagergren)
6 votes accepting the language circulated on the list
Revision #1 Accepted Revision 2
The Registry Constituency proposed adding an additional paragraph to the end of the policy recommendation, as follows: 3) Registrars and registries may use tiered access as a means of complying with local legal requirements when applicable. Proposal rejected by the task force
Revision #2 Rejected Revision 3
The IPC made the proposal, but both the gTLD Registries constituency and the NCUC expressed concern. The goal appeared to be to balance transparency on the one hand and the need for confidentiality on the other, especially in the event of an ongoing investigation. Jordyn Buchanan commented that the paragraph could allow for confidentiality if it were requested by a government agency.
The proposal would replace the last paragraph of step one as follows:
Depending on the specific circumstances of the Whois Proceeding, the Registrar/Registry may request that ICANN keep all correspondence between the parties confidential pending the outcome of the Whois Proceeding, although throughout the entire procedure (including later steps) confidentiality should only be granted in those circumstances where it is necessary, keeping in mind the It is recommended that ICANN respond favorably to such requests to the extent that they can be accommodated with other legal responsibilities and basic principles of transparency applicable to ICANN operations Options:
Not to include change, leave original language
Change language: "confidentiality only when necessary".
Straw pole vote: Registry C against (Tuli Day, David Maher, Ken Stubbs)
NCUC against against (Milton Mueller)
Registrars C against (Tim Ruiz) (Ross Rader was against on the list)
6 votes against the change, that is, to leave the original language CBUC Accept changing language (Marilyn Cade and proxy for David Fares, Sarah Deutsch)
ISP Accept (Tony Harris)
IPC Accept ( Steve Metalitz, Niklas Lagergren)
6 votes supporting the change
Revision #3 Rejected Revision 4. (Guidance on the procedure)
The Registrars proposed adding a paragraph to Step Two of the Guidance on the Procedure. The new paragraph would be inserted between the current first and second paragraphs: "The Registrar should attempt to identify a solution that allows the registrar to meet the requirements of both the local law and ICANN obligations. The General Counsel can assist in advising the registrar on whether the proposed solution meets the ICANN obligations. "
Straw pole vote:
Accepted by all constituencies
Revision #4 Accepted Revision 5.
The IPC proposed adding a text to the end of the first sentence of Step Four. The new sentence would read: "Keeping in the mind the anticipated impact on the operational stability, reliability, security, or global interoperability of the Internet's unique identifier systems, and the value of uniform Whois requirements applying to all Registrars/Registries to the extent possible, the Board should consider and take appropriate action on the recommendations contained in the General Counsel’s report as soon as practicable."
Options:
Not include change,
Include IPC statement and can be reconsidered before final report is published
Accept change
Straw pole vote: Registry C against that is, not include change (Tuli Day, David Maher, Ken Stubbs)
Registrars C against (Tim Ruiz)
NCUC against (Milton Mueller) 5 Votes against CBUC Accept changing language (Marilyn Cade, Sarah Deutsch)
ISP Accept (Tony Harris)
IPC Accept ( Steve Metalitz, Niklas Lagergren) 5 Votes support
Revision #5 Rejected Revision 6.
The IPC proposed a change that would add text to the last sentence of Step Five. The new sentence would read: "ICANN should issue an appropriate notice to the public of the resolution and of the reasons for ICANN’s forbearance from enforcement of full compliance with the contractual provision in question, including relevant contact information for how such data might be accessed in appropriate circumstances"
Straw pole vote: Registry C Against adding the text (Tuli Day, David Maher, Ken Stubbs)
NCUC against against (Milton Mueller)
Registrars C against (Tim Ruiz)
5 Votes against
CBUC Accepted adding the text (Marilyn Cade, (proxy David Fares) Sarah Deutsch)
ISP Accept (Tony Harris, (proxy Maggie Mansourkia)
IPC Accept ( Steve Metalitz, Niklas Lagergren)
5 Votes support
Revision #6 Rejected Revision 7
The ISPCP proposed adding a new Step Six to the Guidance on the Procedure. The new section would read as follows:
Step Six: Ongoing Review "With substantial input from the relevant registries or registrars, together with all constituencies, there should be a review of the pros and cons of how the process worked, and the development of revisions designed to make the process better and more efficient, should the need arise again at some point in the future."
Straw pole vote :
Registry C Accept (Tuli Day, David Maher, Ken Stubbs
CBUC Accept (Marilyn Cade, Sarah Deutsch)
ISP Accept (Tony Harris, )
IPC Accept ( Steve Metalitz, Niklas Lagergren)
8 in favour NCUC against (Milton Mueller)
Registrars C against (Tim Ruiz)
2 against Revision #7 Accepted Task Force Formal Vote:
A formal task force vote for approving or rejecting entire policy recommendation as amended: Revisions 1,
http://forum.icann.org/lists/gnso-dow123/msg00552.html) ,
4 (http://forum.icann.org/lists/gnso-dow123/msg00555.html)
and 7 (http://forum.icann.org/lists/gnso-dow123/msg00558.html)
If supported by the task force, Council and subsequently by the Board the policy section of the recommendation could become consensus policy. Task Force Vote results:
Support: Registry C: David maher, Ken Stubbs, Tuli Day,
IPC supports,
CBUC Marilyn Cade, proxy David Fares, Sarah Deutsch,
ISPCP (3 votes)
NCUC
Registrars: Ross Rader (came on the call late at the end)
(The proxy votes were not taken into consideration consistently, that is Tony Harris had a proxy for Maggie, but mentioned it on revision 6, Marilyn Cade used the proxy ) All constituencies and all voters supported the recommendation 2, on a policy recommendation and advice on a procedure for handling conflicts between a registrar/registry's legal obligations under privacy laws and their contractual obligations to ICANN and the vote will be noted in the report.
Maria will amend the guidance and recommendation in the draft preliminary
task force report accordingly (including adding the results of the task
force vote).
Jordyn will work with Maria to ensure that the policy applies to "registries"
and "registrars" throughout.
The preliminary task force report will be finalised and published on the
ICANN website for 20 days public comment.
Item 2: Purpose of WHOIS
Discussion on the purpose of WHOIS was deferred until the next conference
call to allow sufficient time for consideration and discussion.
Next task force call:
Tuesday, September 13th 2005
Discussion on the purpose of Whois (including constituency statements on the
purpose of Whois)
Jordyn Buchanan thanked all the task force members for participating. The WHOIS task force call ended at 17 :00 CET
- | 