Sorry, you need to enable JavaScript to visit this website.

WHOIS Task Force 2 minutes

Last Updated:
22 October 2018
Date

WHOIS Task Force 2 Teleconference January 5 - Minutes

ATTENDEES:

GNSO Constituency representatives:
gTLD Registries constituency: - Jordyn Buchanan chair
gTLD Registries constituency - David Maher (alternate)
Intellectual Property Interests Constituency - Steve Metalitz (speaker)
Intellectual Property Interests Constituency - Niklas Lagergren
Registrars Constituency - Thomas Keller
Commercial and Business Users constituency:- Marilyn Cade
Non Commercial Users Constituency:- Kathryn Kleiman
Internet Service and Connectivity Providers constituency - Maggie Mansourkia

Liaisons:
At-Large Advisory Committee (ALAC) liaisons - Thomas Roessler
At-Large Advisory Committee (ALAC) liaisons - Wendy Seltzer

ICANN Staff Manager: Barbara Roseman
GNSO Secretariat: Glen de Saint Géry

Absent with apologies
GNSO Council independent representative - Amadeu Abril I Abril

The agenda was approved.
1. Approve questions for constituencies
2. Data elements
3. Preliminary letter
4. Calendaring
5. GAC related questions

Barbara Roseman reported that the Calendar and covering letter were not yet complete but would be available by mid week (7 January).
Progress was being made on the history of the data elements.
The survey of the online Registrars, what their websites show and how they present requests for WHOIS information is underway and should be completed by Monday 12 January.

Steve Metalitz asked whether the request that these questions be forwarded be registrars to their major resellers be included in the questions (e.g., Q. 4) or made part of the cover note/"prelude" to be drafted?
The general feeling of the group was that it should be part of the cover letter.

Item 1. Approve questions for constituencies

Jordyn Buchanan posted all of the edits into a final list of questions to registrars:
1) What information do you provide to potential and existing registrants about the following, and what mechanisms do you use to provide this information to them:
(a) the purposes for which contact data is collected;
(b) the intended recipients or categories of recipients of contact data;
(c) which contact data are obligatory and which (if any) are voluntary;
(d) how registrants may access and seek to rectify their contact data.

Please provide applicable URLs.

2) What mechanisms do you use to obtain consent from registrants for use of their contact data?

Please provide applicable URLs.

3) If you offer registrations through channels other than your website, how do the mechanisms used to inform registrants of the use of their contact data, and to gain consent for that usage, differ from those used on the website?

4) What requirements, if any, do you make of your resellers in terms of informing registrants of the use of their contact data, and gaining consent for that usage?

5) Do you provide any mechanisms for anonymous domain registrations? If so, under what conditions, if any, is the registrant's anonymity lifted, or the anonymous registration canceled?

6) Do you provide any mechanisms to limit the amount of contact data made publicly available through WHOIS? If so, under what conditions, if any, is access granted to data that is collected, but not made publicly available through WHOIS?

7) Describe any accommodations that you have made to comply with local laws pertaining to the collection or display of contact information. Please cite the specific laws.

The questions were approved with no discussion and it was proposed to send them out when the covering letter was ready.

Item 2. Data Elements:
Reference was made to the data elements on Thomas Roessler's table who explained that he had looked at the Registrar Accreditation Agreements and the Registry Agreements and tried to isolate elements relevant to the task force and data elements that were not specific to TLDs and data elements that related to the eligibility verification of registrants. In addition certain data elements were ignored such as Name Server and IP address and Name Server Names, organization fields and trademark information as it applies to .info and .pro.
Steve Metalitz commented that .name had not been charted and recommended that the most comprehensive list of data elements available be listed. Certain discrepancies were noted, the appendix to the Registrar agreement is contradictory and it was suggested that the Registries be asked to confirm what was in the agreement and what was not. Further comments related to suggestions to clarify the presentation.

Thomas Roessler further commented that thick Registries published more data than is available to the Registrars and that the focus should be on the Registrar Accreditation Agreement data elements and what elements are available. While Registrars have no obligation to publish data thick Registries do have an obligation to publish data which brings up issues concerning consent, information and why there was the difference.

Jordyn Buchanan, as a point of clarification added that the individual Registrar/Registry agreements were part of the Registry agreement with ICANN and were not subject to modification on a per registrar basis.

Jordyn Buchanan proposed 2 charts:
a. a list of exhaustive data elements that could be used for reference
b. a simpler list of data elements, stipulating that it was not obtained from any one WHOIS but was some of the data elements, that could be sent with the covering letter.

Jordyn Buchanan proposed 2 action items:
a. Create an easy to read data element chart - Jordyn Buchanan
b. Update the chart with .name - list the different elements in .name - Steve Metalitz/Thomas Roessler

Item 3. GAC related Issues
The GAC response was due an initiative by Marilyn Cade.
Kathy Kleiman, Thomas Roessler and Tom Keller were of the general opinion that questions to the GAC should be more detailed, while Steve Metalitz felt that more could be obtained from a general approach than from details. It was noted that the GAC has received a limited response to the questionnaire.
Kathy Kleiman commented that it was important to get questions out to the GAC and suggested that the GAC responses should be used to frame additional questions.
Marilyn Cade suggested a single approach to the GAC, putting together a statement and coordinating with the other task forces on what was required from the GAC.
It was generally agreed that in the interaction with the GAC the important point was to know what the WHOIS task force wanted from the GAC and that there had to be rapid action.
Jordyn Buchanan undertook :
- to ask Suzanne Sene if it would be possible to share the GAC responses with the task force
- proposed asking the GNSO Council for the most appropriate way to approach the GAC

Time line Friday 9, January - Specific questions to the GAC taking into account modifications that have been made by Steve Metalitz -

Item 4. Any Other Business

Thomas Keller was asked to draw up an initial short list of questions for the ccTLD launching group, Centr, etc
Jordyn Buchanan would contact Elisabeth Porteneuve regarding the ccTLD survey.

Next Meeting:

Kathy Kleiman - enquire about an online form for the OECD material.
Barbara Roseman - covering letter
Steve Metalitz/Thomas Roessler - Update the chart with .name - list the different elements in .name
Jordyn Buchanan - Create an easy to read data element chart
Thomas keller - ccTLD questions
Barbara Roseman - enquire whether the other WHOIS task forces would ask the GAC questions.

Jordyn Buchanan thanked everyone for their presence and participation and ended the call at 18:35 UTC.

Next call: Monday 12 January 16:00 UTC, 11:00 EST, 8:00 Los Angeles, 17:00 CET.
The call will be scheduled for one hour and thirty minutes.