WHOIS Task Force 1 Teleconference February 10 , 2004 - Minutes ATTENDEES: GNSO Constituency representatives:
gTLD Registries constituency: - Jeff Neuman - Chair
Commercial and Business Users constituency - David Fares
gTLD Registries constituency - David Maher
Intellectual Property Interests Constituency - Jeremy Banks
Non Commercial Users Constituency - Milton Mueller Liaisons:
At-Large Advisory Committee (ALAC) liaisons - Wendy Seltzer
ICANN Staff Manager: Barbara Roseman
GNSO Secretariat: Glen de Saint Géry Absent:
Internet Service and Connectivity Providers constituency: - Antonio Harris - apologies
Registrars constituency - Paul Stahura Surveys Glen de Saint Géry reported the task force 1 survey questionnaire had been distributed to the address list that Barbara Roseman had provided
and a list of company names without addresses were sent to the task force members to identify possible contacts and distribute the survey.
In addition the survey was distributed to the GNSO constituency list, and published on the ICANN website.
Some task force members sent snail mail address contacts and it was suggested that Barbara Roseman ask the ICANN office to send the survey to them. In summary:
1) Surveys
a) Each member will send out the survey to its own constituency to try to get the constituencies to circulate them to other entities and organizations.
b) ICANN will look into putting a notice on its website about the survey.
c) Glen will look into fixing typo in last sentence of the questionnaire (the word "our" is in there twice).
d) We will circulate the list of organizations to the group and divide up the contacts so that we can follow up with them personally to ensure that they are filling out the survey.
e) It was suggested that the survey response archives be sent to each task force member. Needs and Justification chart
Jeff Neuman referred to Wendy Seltzer's email, reporting on the first sub group meeting to prepare a chart listing: WHOIS data user (individual or group); Stated needs for WHOIS data; and Justification for those uses of WHOIS data, from pervious Whois workshop material and suggesting individual work assignments.
David Maher reported completing his assignment of presentations which were statements about privacy and did not go into detail. A list of data was not possible, there should be a textural explanation in the columns. Wendy remarked that the presentations indicated that people did not want the data made public, rather than a concern why the data was needed.
Milton Mueller stated that trying to visualize the end result of the task force, it was difficult to understand the purpose of the latest exercise collecting the needs and justifications.
There seem to be 2 interests at stake:
- People who used various forms of data, such as port 43
- Others, such as the registries and registrars or the service providers who find or think that the Whois capabilities are abused.
He was rather of the opinion that additional data should perhaps be collected about the registrars and registries load in terms of what it means to them and whether there was a big problem. Jeff Neuman restated the task force's role according to the terms of reference:
1. - collect the stated needs and the justification for those needs from non-marketing users of contact information (this could be extracted from the Montreal workshop and also by GNSO constituencies, and should also include accessibility requirements (e.g based on W3C standards)
2. - review general approaches to prevent automated electronic data mining and ensure that the requirements for access are met (including accessibility requirements for those that may for example be visually impaired)
3. - determine whether any changes are required in the contracts to allow the approaches to be used above (for example the contracts require the use of the port-43 WHOIS protocol and this may not support approaches to prevent data mining) David Fares commented that point 2 was a factual review while point 3 called for the revision of contracts allowing everything identified in 2 to be implemented, but in fact, it was noted, there was no place to make a policy recommendation whether any of those should be implemented. Collection of facts and constituency statements was considered important but would not provide much guidance to the Council. Should be included in the chart in third column. The task force goal was to report to the Council what the needs and justification were for different types of data, whether through port 43 or web based access and to see if there were ways to restrict the access.
Milton Mueller emphasized the need for the task force to make recommendations.
Clarification was needed on the terms of reference as to policy recommendations. For example, the Terms of Reference do not ask the Task Force to make recommendations as to whether they believed access should be restricted and if so, how. If they were not charged with making such recommendations, then who would be? In summary:
2) Needs/Justification Charts:
a) First draft of charts due to Jeff Neuman by Thursday, Feb. 12th. who will collate them into one chart and send out to group by the weekend.
b)Review chart on the next call.
c) Please remember to include a third column on the chart for concerns about access to Whois. Following a concern raised by Milton Mueller on Registry/Registrar Methods for Restricting Access, it was agreed that Milton Mueller, Paul Stahura and Jeffe Neuman would work on a second questionnaire to go to the Registries and Registrars on the issues involved with access to Whois (i.e., what the load is on our system, costs, etc.) and what mechanisms they have used (or are out there) to restrict access. b) Discuss draft at next meeting with goal of getting it out next week, 17 February. General Comment
a) Guidance was required from the GNSO Council on timelines. Jeff Neuman thanked everyone for their presence and participation and ended the call at 16:50 UTC. Next call: Tuesday 17 February 2004, 16:00 UTC, 11:00 EST, 8:00 Los Angeles, 17:00 CET. | 