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

WHOIS Task Forces 1 and 2 teleconference

Last Updated:
31 August 2009
Date

WHOIS Task Forces 1 & 2



15 February, 2005 - Minutes

ATTENDEES:

GNSO Constituency representatives:
Registrars constituency - Jordyn Buchanan - Co-Chair

gTLD Registries constituency: - Jeff Neuman - Co-Chair

gTLD Registries constituency - David Maher

Commercial and Business Users constituency - Marilyn Cade
Internet Service and Connectivity Providers constituency - Antonio Harris
Registrars constituency - Tom Keller

Registrars constituency - Paul Stahura

Intellectual Property Interests Constituency - Steve Metalitz

Government Advisory Committee (GAC) liaison - Suzanne Sene

ICANN GNSO Policy Officer - Maria Farrell

ICANN Staff Manager: Barbara Roseman

GNSO Secretariat: Glen de Saint Géry



Absent:

Registrars constituency - Tim Ruiz

Nominating committee representative - Amadeu Abril l Abril

Intellectual Property Interests Constituency - Niklas Lagergren,

Intellectual Property Interests Constituency - Jeremy Banks

Commercial and Business Users constituency - David Fares - apologies

Non Commercial Users Constituency - Marc Schneiders

Non Commercial Users Constituency - Milton Mueller - apologies

Non Commercial Users Constituency - Kathy Kleiman

Internet Service and Connectivity Providers constituency - Maggie Mansourkia - apologies

At-Large Advisory Committee (ALAC) liaisons - Thomas Roessler - apologies

At-Large Advisory Committee (ALAC) liaisons - Wendy Seltzer



MP3 Recording



Jeff Neuman stated that the purpose of the call was to discuss the constituency statements:

Intellectual Property Constituency (IPC) Statement

Registrar Constituency statement

Non commercial Users Constituency statement

Commercial and Business Users Constituency statement



The gTLD Registry and Internet Service Providers and Connectivity Providers constituencies would submit statements shortly.

From the statements received, and input from the gTLD regeistry constituency there appeared to be 2 diametrically opposed sides

The task force has reached the stage of the process where a report should be provided with statements attached indicating the views and impact on each constituency.



Three constituencies supported the task force recommendations in general with some wording changes:

- Intellectual Property Interests constituency (unanimous approval)

- Non Commercial Users constituency

- Commercial and Business users constituency (one comment not supportive, emphasizing the additional burden on the registrars)



Two constituencies opposed the recommendations:

Registrar constituency

Registries constituency

The registrars, though not unanimous felt that it added an unnecessary burden, concern was expressed that ever issue coming up would require a different set of notices in registration process which might be impossible for the small companies who would have to pick up most of the costs. In addition it could have an adverse affect on the registrar client relationship. The registries unanimously supported the registrars and considered it over complicated a very simple process, the rules in place were adequate and voluntary compliance should take care of any issues.



Jeff Neuman mentioned the weighted voting scheme at the GNSO Council level, the providers, Registries and Registrars had a double vote and the 4 user constituencies equaled the voting of the latter. There were 3 other representatives form the Nominating Committee who could break a tie.

If the Registrars and Registries voted against the report it would not be forwarded to the Board as a consensus policy , but as a majority proposal. The ramifications were that if it was not a consensus policy, the Board could not impose it on the registrars and registries and it would not become an automatic amendment to the contract.



Jeff Neuman proposed two options:

- open the process and examine whether there are any middle grounds; possible value in modifying the statements to gain greater support

- when all the statements have been received, the task force votes on the report, the objections are noted and the report is submitted to the GNSO council



Common ground: no constituency opposed making the end user or registrant aware of what their information was going to be used for . It was in prescribing how their customers were made aware.

Steve Metalitz referred to the Task Force 2 recommendations and felt that they could all be adopted.



3.1 Notification and Consent


ICANN should:



a) incorporate compliance with the notification and consent requirement (R.A.A. Secs. 3.7.7.4, 3.7.7.5) as part of its overall plan to improve registrar compliance with the RAA. (See MOU Amendment II.C.14.d).



b) issue an advisory reminding registrars of the importance of compliance with this contractual requirement, even registrars operating primarily in countries in which local law apparently does not require registrant consent to be obtained.



c) encourage development of best practices that will improve the effectiveness of giving notice to, and obtaining consent from, domain name registrants with regard to uses of registrant contact data, such as by requesting that GNSO commence a policy development process (or other procedure) with goal of developing such best practices.



Jordyn Buchanan
responded that the registrar statement had adopted some of the principles behind the task force recommendation but there was some aversion to adopting specific implementation mechanisms especially where they were difficult to implement or incompatible with existing registration processes. Encouraging the notion of best practices seemed compatible with the notion that the registrars put forward that they encouraged voluntary adoption of such measures. Creating some clarity about the way it might be done would be a policy that could be supported.



Jordyn Buchanan asked about the status of task force 2 recommendations:



GNSO Council decision on Whois task forces at the meeting in Kuala Lumpur in July 2004.



Whois task forces one and two combine and work together, in particular looking at the tiered access option and developing further up-front advice to registrants about their obligations and the fact that none of the data becomes public

- Whois task force three proceed to clearly identify its recommendations for new policy and work on determining what are the implementation issues for work done by ICANN and work done by registrars

- the work output of the two groups, combined Whois task forces one and two and Whois task force three, be combined before next going out to public comment.



Jordyn Buchanan suggested going back to the task force 2 recommendations, presenting them to the Council to vote on rather than forwarding the proposals developed over the past few weeks.



Steve Metalitz expressed concern about the length of time it would take to go back to the constituencies for approval if there were changes brought about in the recommendations.



Jeff Neuman responded that if the statement was consistent with what the constituency had put forward it may not need to go back to the constituency and referred to the policy development process



Section 7. Task Forces

e. Task Force Report.

The chair of the task force, working with the Staff Manager, shall compile the Constituency Statements, Public Comment Report, and other information or reports, as applicable, into a single document ("Preliminary Task Force Report") and distribute the Preliminary Task Force Report to the full task force within forty (40) calendar days after initiation of the PDP. The task force shall have a final task force meeting within five (5) days after the date of distribution of the Preliminary Task Force Report to deliberate the issues and try and reach a Supermajority Vote. Within five (5) calendar days after the final task force meeting, the chair of the task force and the Staff Manager shall create the final task force report (the "Task Force Report") and post it on the Comment Site. Each Task Force Report must include:



Jordyn Buchanan commented that the bylaws contemplated a meeting of the task force before the report went to the GNSO Council.



Jeff Neuman suggested that the policy development process could be followed:

2. take a vote in the task force on the statement and if there was no super majority a clear statement of all positions espoused by task force members submitted within the twenty-day timeline for submission of constituency reports. Each statement should clearly indicate (i) the reasons underlying the position and (ii) the constituency(ies) that held the position;

3. An analysis of how the issue would affect each constituency of the task force, including any financial impact on the constituency;

4. An analysis of the period of time that would likely be necessary to implement the policy; and

5. The advice of any outside advisors appointed to the task force by the Council, accompanied by a detailed statement of the advisors' (i) qualifications and relevant experience; and (ii) potential conflicts of interest.



The task force felt that there was common ground that everyone supported that notice be provided to all registrants in advance of registration as to what their data is going to be used for.

Possible recommendation from the task force that an implementation committee be set up by ICANN on how that could be enforced.



The GNSO Council and the report could propose guidance to the Implementation committee and the focus could be on what type of enforcement mechanism ICANN could use to make sure registrars were complying with the contract.



Steve Metalitz felt it was entirely unnecessary.



Jordyn Buchanan expressed concern that forwarding recommendations to the Council that would not gain consensus might loose some of the work and recommendations already put forward by task force 2 that gained support.



Jordyn Buchanan
reported ICANN General Counsel had been contacted regarding Recommendation 2. Currently General Counsel was occupied but was aware of the task force's need to meet.



It was commented that nothing in the policy development process stipulated consultation with General Counsel

Next Calls :

22 February:

Discuss option A and B to be circulated on the task force list by the co-chairs

Discuss what should be done about Recommendation 2



1 March

Proposed call with .name, .ca, DeNIC and registrars that offer proxy services.



Jeff and Jordyn thanked everybody for participating.



The call ended at 17 :58 CET



Next Whois Task Force 1/2 Call: 22 February 2005

see:
GNSO calendar