WHOIS Task Forces 1 and 2 Teleconference 22 February, 2005 - Minutes ATTENDEES:
GNSO Constituency representatives:
Registrars constituency - Jordyn Buchanan - Co-Chair
gTLD Registries constituency - David Maher
Internet Service and Connectivity Providers constituency: - Antonio Harris
Intellectual Property Interests Constituency - Steve Metalitz
Intellectual Property Interests Constituency - Niklas Lagergen
Commercial and Business Users constituency - Marilyn Cade
Commercial and Business Users constituency - David Fares
Liaisons:
At-Large Advisory Committee (ALAC) - Wendy Seltzer
Govenrment Advisory Committee (GAC) Suzanne Sene
ICANN Staff
GNSO Policy Officer - Maria Farrell
Barbara Roseman
Absent:
gTLD Registries constituency: - Jeff Neuman - Co-Chair - apologies
Non Commercial Users Constituency - Milton Mueller
Registrars constituency - Tom Keller
Registrars constituency - Paul Stahura
Non Commercial Users Constituency - Milton Mueller
Non Commercial Users Constituency - Marc Schneiders
gTLD Registries constituency: - Jeff Neuman - Co-Chair - apologies
Internet Service and Connectivity Providers constituency - Maggie Mansourkia- apologies
Intellectual Property Interests Constituency - Jeremy Banks
Intellectual Property Interests Constituency - Steve Metalitz
At-Large Advisory Committee (ALAC) liaisons - Thomas Roessler - apologies
GNSO Secretariat: Glen de Saint Géry - absent - apologies
Agenda: 1. How to move forward
2. Discuss invitations to expert groups for call on 1 March
Jordyn Buchanan
Agenda point on moving forward on conspicuous notice and local law provisions. There was a council meeting last Thursday where our work was discussed and council provided some advice on how to move forward – some structural changes but it goes with what I’ve seen on the mailing list. Some of the other people on the call were on the council call so they can say if I’ve missed anything. It’s been recommended that we do two things. One to codify or report on the work we’ve done to date on the various topics where we’ve drawn to a conclusion. That would be with regard to both writing up a summary of the previous task forces work which may be extracting various pieces – we’ll see how to do that – and that segues into the recommendations we’ve put together as a task force and how they were accepted by various constituencies. That will be put into a document with the local law piece. Council says TF3 has basically stalled out and so the work they’ve done to date will be incorporated into that report. Staff will work closely with the two chairs as well as with Bruce Tonkin to bring that about. Going forward we’ll put together an intense series of meetings over the next month to move forward on tiered access. The suggestion was made to do two meetings a week with one meeting where we’re joined by guests to discuss various topics – next week we’ll have some – and it was also suggested that ? and groups like that can give input . and the other calls will be devoted to dialogue between the various task force members with the goal of having moved forward on the tiered access piece in time for the Argentina meeting. Anyone with any questions or comments, bring them forward. Steve Metalitz
I understood second hand on the call that ?? why do only intensive work on this task force’s area. We’ve produced something in this task force and have recommendations in the pipeline that we’re pushing forward and that’s where attention should be focused. In terms of two meetings a week, our problem is not quantity, it’s quality and it’s not realistic to expect people to give up that much time over the next few weeks. It’s most important to have agendas sent out in advance and that would be more productive than devoting three hours to these calls. Jordyn
Your point on TF3’s work is taken. My understanding from the council call discussion – which wasn’t highly interactive, and different people may have different understandings of what Bruce Tonkin recommended – but some people were under the impression that TF 3’s work would be part of our work for the next few weeks but I thought we’d be focused on tiered access. Nick lagergren
Agreement on the basis of TF 3 as had been discussed and agreed at the breakfast meeting in Cape Town and we shouldn’t leave that aside. Jordyn TF3 is being merged in and those issues would have to be worked on at some point. Did others have thoughts about two meetings a week? Everyone likes the idea? Is it a problem for anyone else? (silence) Based on that, we – I agree with your point Steve that we want quality as well – but to the extent that we want to have outside presentations made to the task force, it’s difficult to imagine having several of those and being able to have substantive dialogue over the next few weeks without having additional meetings in the schedule. But we don’t need to schedule two meetings a week for the sake of it so we’ll take suggestions. – make one meeting a week and have it a little longer.
- is the problem about length of time or two different time slots?
- If we were able to get these presentations going, it might make sense to schedule some additional meetings.
- From my perspective, three hours a week is difficult. (David Fares) Jordyn
The only presentations we’ve discussed concretely to date are people who’ve implemented or have a concrete plan to implement a tiered access system and we’re on track to have that presentation next week. The other is to have registrars that operate proxy services to discuss their services with us. We may combine those two into one meeting. The other type of effort we’ve discussed in the past is bringing in some security and stability input. Bruce thinks that might be a useful thing and that might be another meeting to discuss the security community – to the extent that it exists – the security community‘s viewpoint on these issues. Jordyn
so I think what I’m getting is that we want to minimize the changes or increase to the schedule that might happen but part of these presentations might be reasonable to add some special meetings for these presentations. Any other comments on the general philosophy of codifying, not codifying but summarizing into a report the recommendations we have to date, and on consent and local law issues. Steve
Will moving ahead in the policy process be part of the recommendations. Jordyn:
We need to do some of that work anyway in terms of doing a report for the council so we would move ahead on both. Steve
They’re at different stages.
Jordyn
Yes. Essentially the idea is to create a factual report. And if we decided as a task force that we were ready to gather the recommendations in relation to local laws then we could include or modify anything on that at the time of the report.
Steve
On recommendation 1? Where do these fit in the process?
Jordyn
My understanding is we put together a report on the overall work we’ve done and we present that to the council. If you think it’s important that the report be presented and include constituency statements on the second recommendations. A report on the status of the work to date regardless of whether it includes the constituency statements Marilyn Cade ( Joining the call) Jordyn
It can include constituency statements and feedback and is a factual report on the current status of the work . Steve
Looking ahead……. Every time we move ahead in the process, someone suggests we make a right turn or cul de sac. First we have the staff holding up the process. Now we have the council holding up the process. Don’t you think we should follow the PDP as our first obligations? Sounds to me as if recommendation 1 should overlap considerably. Jordyn
I’m not sure why it’s – the PDP does require a report to be created.
Steve
I would move that the staff create the report and present it to us at the next meeting. Barbara
Perhaps by next week Maria can present an outline but trying to do it in one week is too much. But she can have a broad outline and some of the details worked out. Jordyn
We have a schedule for next week ( week 7 to 12 March 2004) anyway so the week after next is more realistic. Marilyn
Would be good for Maria to take a crack and ask questions about it in a 20 minute slot next week (I March 2005.)
Jordyn
Worried about adding items. Maria to email the outline to the list and ask for feedback and guidance from the task force by email. Barbara
That’s reasonable Steve With regard to recommendation 2, the question for us is whether we should
a) send it out for constituency statements or
b) not do so and continue to try to arrange a meeting next week
a another option to consider is the ombudsman who took office recently but seems to be well suited to that. Jordyn
So that seems to me Steve that we can proceed – its certain that we could take under advisement the letter we’ve already received from the staff, and maybe having further interactive dialogues – but you’re right, to the extent that we’re having problems getting attention from the staff that we consider how long that process might take. Marilyn
I don’t think we ought to go out for a constituency vote unless we have something real for them to vote on. So I recommend the other approach and see how long it would take to contact he ombudsman, and have a look at where we are. You were thinking it would take a long time to get a ruling on it?
Jordyn
I don’t know how long it will take. We don’t need a ruling, we need our issue resolved. I’m not opposed to it if we think it’s premature to go to the constituencies at this point. Any other thoughts or comments?
David Maher
I support the ombudsman approach to help us try to understand the staff concerns before we move forward.
Jordyn
It seems there’s not a lot of support for moving forward without some dialogue with the staff so we’ll go ahead and initiate the ombudsman and see what happens.
It was proposed that Jordyn and Jeff look on the ombudsman’s home page and make contact immediately. Jordyn
Hopefully we’ll have some other status than we just submitted it. In the next day or two we’ll submit it and have seen what’s needed to submit the request.
OK so we have our way forward for issue number 2. the staff will be working with us on the report for issues number 1 and 2. We will be merging task force 3 in with the current 1 and 2 and next week we will start our calls with tiered access providers, even though some of their proposals have never been implemented.
The two lists will be merged
Bruce Tonkin has requested that we might consider adjusting our call times so they’re more convenient for those in the Asia Pacific region, and that’s the evening for those in Europe . Does anyone have thoughts? Marilyn
My understanding was that the group was going to have join the task forces and he would fulfil his obligations there. I don’t think he’ll participate in the long run. But I’m not interested, we’re not having the chair being there all the time, just for a few weeks till we get to mar del plata . Day would remain the same, Tuesday. New call time proposed 2:00 pm EST (19:00 UTC) Steve
Have no problem in general though may not participate next week.
Jordyn
Europeans are most affected. And Asia Pacific. Maybe there’s a way to stagger the call so Bruce is able. We’ll move to the 2pm time slot and see if there’s a dramatic drop off, but we’ll accommodate Bruce’s schedule in the run up to mar del plata .
Marilyn Did you talk yet about what you’ll do in mar del plata. Jordyn
No, we talked about the staff producing the report as discussed on the council call, and about a slightly more aggressive meeting schedule. The compromise we settled on was that to the extent that we have presentations on certain weeks, we’ll schedule extra meetings in those weeks. Having one listening and one participating meeting a week will be too much for some task force members. Marilyn
Council will meet in mar del plata with the liaison group with the GAC. In the past we had a problem that we had only an hour but we have an hour and a half to two hour time slot. Still working on it. Bruce proposed we have a set of current working papers on each side to facilitate non-English speakers, to discuss progress and priorities. We hadn’t figured out how we’re going to do any such papers, they’ll probably be extremely high level like bullet points. WHOIS will be discussed. We’ll continue to have WHOIS in the public forum and also other topics in the public forum as well. We were hoping to have a face to face working session between the council and the task force like we did last time specific to whois . Briefing material for the Mar del Plata meeting:
suggestion that Bruce Tonkin prepares some with Jeff and Jordyn Jordyn
We can look forward to having some perhaps presentation at the forum. That would be my taking there are
not necessarily any specific action items. Task Force attendees in Mar del Plata Jordyn Buchanan, David Maher, Tony Harris, Niklas Lagergren, Frannie Wellings, ,David Fares?? J ordyn Right, will be a broad set of meetings, like our joint meeting with council will be a good opportunity to be very productive. Seems to me like we’ve got the right set of meetings. We may want to revisit that in a week or two, when we see what our report is looking like and we see if there’s progress on tiered access or action items. OK we’ll plan that, but we at least have consent for the planned activities at mar del plata . I don’t have anything else from the agenda today. It’s been fairly administrative but it’s given us fairly clear … on the two topics. One question on the tiered access piece. We’ll have the two presentations next week. Are there any other experts we should have? Jordyn
I believe we have confirmation from .name and Network Solutions who I’m still trying to schedule. We just changed the time so I’m re-checking. A couple of registrars who have proxy services will come if we have time during that call. The registrars I’ve talked to so far were Godaddy and E-Nom who are task force members. Marilyn
I would like us not to use the task force members to do presentations if we can avoid it. It puts them in a difficult situation. Are we putting them in a difficult position if they’re the only sources of information we have on this topic. They have another job to do as well. Jordyn
I understand. They volunteered on a previous call . network solutions aren’t presenting for example. I think there’s obviously provides a services but Godaddy represent a pretty large chunk and we would want to have another one too. Marilyn
I’d like to do that and I thought we’d agreed that. We should have a conversation with the SSAC (?) and I think there’s a growing examination that we may want to have in the first round on what else do we need to do, more understanding is better. Definitely we should have SSAC, and we’ve mentioned .ca. Jordyn
Yes, we’d like to have them and I’ll get back to you. So I want to also schedule the chair of the SSAC as well as any other as he’d be good to present on security aspects of WHOIS and maybe tiered access. Those will be the only sessions for input unless anyone has suggestions.
Next week
1 March 2005 Presentations
Following week
8 March 2005
- the update
- report from staff
- revisit what to do in mar del plata
The call on 1 March 2005 will be transcribed and a MP3 recording made.
Jordyn Buchanan thanked all the participants for attending.
Call ended at 17:05 UTC Thanks to Maria, the call was practically transcribed.
Next Call: 19 October 2004
see: GNSO calendar
| 