WHOIS Task Force
24 July - MinutesATTENDEES:
GNSO Constituency representatives:
Jordyn Buchanan - Chair
gTLD Registries constituency - David Maher
Registrars constituency - Ross Rader
Registrars constituency - Tom Keller
Internet Service and Connectivity Providers constituency - Maggie Mansourkia
Internet Service and Connectivity Providers constituency - Greg Ruth
Intellectual Property Interests Constituency - Steve Metalitz
Commercial and Business Users constituency - Marilyn Cade
Commercial and Business Users Constituency - David Fares
Non Commercial Users Constituency - Kathy Kleiman
Non Commercial Users Constituency - Milton Mueller
Nominating Committee appointee - Avri Doria
Liaisons
At-Large Advisory Committee (ALAC) liaisons - Wendy Seltzer
GAC Liaison - Suzanne Sene - absent
ICANN Staff:
Maria Farrell- Manager, Policy Officer
GNSO Secretariat - Glen de Saint Géry
Absent:
gTLD Registries constituency - Simon Sheard - excused
gTLD Registries constituency - Ken Stubbs - excused
Internet Service and Connectivity Providers constituency - Tony Harris - excused
Commercial and Business Users Constituency - Sarah Deutsch
Intellectual Property Interests Constituency - Niklas Lagergren
Registrars constituency - Paul Stahura
Non Commercial Users Constituency - Frannie Wellings
Registrars constituency - Tim Ruiz (alternate)
MP3 Recording
Agenda: 1. Scheduling of next task force calls
2. Board Resolution from Marrakech
3. GNSO Council resolutions 20 July 2006
4. Discuss the potential implications to removing variouis data fields, as proposed in the OPOC proposal.
References:
http://www.writely.com/Doc.aspx?id=dgsxrsww_2gjfj37 http://dnspolicy.org:4080/index.php?n=Main.OperationalPointOfContactRef…:
Jordyn Buchanan referred to his email : where the OPOC proposal was online as a Writely document, which would allow tracking changes over time as well as collaboratively editing the document.
. In the version online included some of the recent changes that have been discussed including:
- Adding a definition of the OPOC
- Adding an obligation for Registrars to take "reasonable steps" to verify the accuracy of non-email contact data that is updated in response to a complaint about the accuracy of the data.
Jordyn Buchanan would send out instructions to the list on how to get Writely to display 'all changes' to the document at the same time.
http://www.writely.com/Doc.aspx?id=dgsxrsww_2gjfj37 1. Scheduling of next task force calls The following dates were agreed upon:
Tuesday 1 August at 7:30 Pacific time, 10:30 EST, 14:30 UTC, 16:30 CET.
Monday 14 August at 7:30 Pacific time, 10:30 EST, 14:30 UTC, 16:30 CET.
Monday 28 August at 7:30 Pacific time, 10:30 EST, 14:30 UTC, 16:30 CET.
Monday 18 September 7:30 Pacific time, 10:30 EST, 14:30 UTC, 16:30 CET.
Monday 25 September 7:30 Pacific time, 10:30 EST, 14:30 UTC, 16:30 CET.
Glen will send out reminders by email 24 - 48 hours ahead of each call.
2. Board Resolution from Marrakech
The ICANN Board passed a resolution on the Whois work, supporting the work dates announced by the task force (policy to the board by early 2007, so report to the Council by Sao Paulo). They also committed to helping the task force liaise with the GAC.
3. GNSO Council resolutions 20 July 2006
GNSO Council resolutions and amendment
Marilyn Cade reported that in the council meeting in Marrakech, points were made about the need to develop a documented and agreed work plan for the task force which is contained in the motions. The task force is asked to continue its work, recognising the exchanges and additional information that has been received.
The input has been published and can be found at:
http://gnso.icann.org/issues/whois-privacy/
4. Discuss the potential implications to removing various data fields, as proposed in the OPOC proposal.
References:
Discussion between Jordyn Buchanan and Milton Mueller on the relationship (if any) of this topic to the purpose of Whois. It was agreed that the purpose of the discussion is to understand what the consequences might be of removing specific fields.
Jordyn Buchanan: What are the consequences of removing the name of the registrant?
Steve Metalitz commented that this would make it impossible to initiate any kind of action and in some cases make it impossible to even see if there was a basis for an action. (i.e. if a licensee was using a trademarked name)
Ross Rader and Tom Keller did not support removing the registrant name from the Whois - we need to know who the owner is, even if other data is not published.
Marilyn Cade also opposed removing it. As chair of Transfers Task Force, there were complaints about individuals who could not take action, or lost their names, because they did not take care of their rights when they used a third party to do the registration. There were many unintended problems for registrants beyond the point Steve Metalitz made.
Wendy Seltzer proposed delaying the discussion and did not want to take up time on a proposal that has no chance of being adopted. In response to Steve Metalitz, she asked how many domain names were used commercially versus non-commercially. For non-commercial uses, there was no trademark interest in finding out the name of the registrant. Wendy expressed concern about the non-commercial registrants.
Marilyn Cade commented that the ICANN staff had been requested to make a study.
The topic was deferred.
Jordyn Buchanan suggested discussing the registrant mailing address.
Steve Metalitz commented that trademark and copy rights were territorial, so where the registrant was located might have a bearing. The Dutch OPTA also mentioned that it was critical to know where the registrant was located. Some problems could best dealt with by direct contact with the registrant - submissions by eBay and others showed this. One of the results of eliminating registrant contact information, the mailing address, would impede one of the chanels that is used to resolve such issues most expedtiously and it would not be useful to adopt a policy that would drive up costs.
Kathy Kleiman commented that the OPOC proposal was wise to remove the address. Registrant and admin contact data were the same. Addresses were where the worst abuses were caused such as; stalking, dissidents or human rights activists, those criticising corporations, this is where they were most exposed to physical danger. Kathy would like to see the OPOC proposal required to pass on cease and desist letters. There was a chilling effect when a notice went straight to someone's home. For sending these to commercial organisations, the corporation's address was used, it went through intermediaries.
Jordyn Buchanan commented that the effect would be people would not be exposed to risks of death, physical danger, stalking and chilling of speech.
Wendy Seltzer commented that she ran a website, chillingeffects.org where people sent the cease and desist letters they have received. It varied, some lawyers only sent letters to those using trademarks in infringing ways. And there were the 'davezilla weblog' letters, and also parody or non-commercial websites. They were non-commercial websites. Speech was not something we should make vulnerable to those concerned. Making it easier to contact people made it easier to contact them for harassment as well as for lawful processes. Wendy still received, based on Whois data, the fraudulent notices of 'your domain name is about to expire' from people who were not the registrar. Those come through paper name on official looking stationery.
Jordyn Buchanan commented that the consequences might be less trickery of domain name registrants if the information were removed.
Steve Metalitz responded, the UDRP, registrants had the ability to bring a case in their own jurisdiction. That would be information they would not have. On the threatening letters and chilling effects, they had to act on the merits of claims people brought and that did not have to do with this issue. They would get them through the OPOC too.
Jordyn Buchnan proposed that the minimum standard was to include passing on important notices.
Ross Rader disagreed with Kathy Kleiman and Steve Metalitz and commented that most corporations had a generic address in the WHOIS and notices went into a black hole and may or may not make it to the right person. The OPOC proposal could not guarantee that information arrived where it should and disagreed with the notion that the proposal should mandate any action.
Kathy Kleiman commented that making the data available was exposing people to abuses and suggested setting up a template with a heading or a process that indicated, 'this is a legal notice and we want it passed on to the registrant'.
Ross Rader responded that it removed the onus from the recipient to the sender and gave the example that he was responsible for responding to government notices on his taxes and if he did not receive those notices, he was still fully responsible for them. In the case of legal and legislative issues related to the ownership of the domain name, if the registrant had not set up a relationship with the OPOC that they could receive and act on those notices in a reasonable and timely manner, then they were on the hook for any actions that arise from the dysfunctional set up. It was not wise to make the legal community at large jump through hoops because small changes were made.
The operational point of contact data elements were inclusive of what are currently in the administrative and technical contact with the exception of the fax number that was optional and did not exist in the OPOC proposal.
Steve Metalitz responded to the question of what would be the consequences of removing the admin contact, that the role of the admin contact was not well defined. Often it was someone to raise a concern about property infringement, or spam and was another step in the process, going through the OPOC instead of contacting the admin contact directly, which could create costs and uncertainty.
Milton Mueller commented that the OPOC was a combination and streamlined version of the admin and technical contact which were previously unclear.
Marilyn Cade commented that the consolidated function may have the unintended consequence of delaying how quickly the technical resources were reached.
Nothing stopped the registrant publishing more than one contact, there could be 5 or more OPOCs each labeled differently and each one for different issues.
Marilyn Cade commented that it had been said that the OPOC might create a new business opportunity for registrars, but having a non-standard implementation was not practical as far as the registrars were concerned.
Ross Rader proposed amending the proposal to support current practise and to address the use case put forward regarding the tendency of large corporations to include more data than less and the concerns around relying on market mechanisms to deal appropriately with relatively small issues such as this. Jordyn Buchanan proposed closing the call and thanked everyone for their participation.
Next Task Force Call: August 1, 2006 at 7:30 LA, 10:30 EST, 14:00 UTC, 16:30 CET.
Proposed agenda:
Discuss more of the consequences of removing some of the contacts.
How the definition of purpose relates to the OPOCproposal.
|
