Item 3: Update from WHOIS task forces
- report on appointments of chairs and timelines for work program
Task force 1: Restricting access to WHOIS data for marketing purposes - chair - Jeff Neuman
Task force 2: Review of data collected and displayed - chair - Jordyn Buchanan
Task Force 3: Improving Accuracy of collected data - chair - Brian DarvilleJeff Neuman, WHOIS Task Force 1 chair, reported that the task was to collect information on the needs and justifications for non-marketing uses of WHOIS information and to look at the measures that are already in place or being developed to prevent data mining. In order to do this information, already available from the WHOIS workshops, surveys and former studies was being collected by the ICANN staff. A further task was the identification of "non-marketing groups" and soliciting their input on the needs and justification for the non-marketing uses of WHOIS data.
Jeff Neuman requested that the GNSO Council accept the proposed time line stating that it was particularly aggressive to keep within the policy development process timelines and complete a Final Report. by March 1, 2004 for the ICANN Meeting in Rome.:
1) December 23, 2003: Dissemination by ICANN of all WHOIS workshop materials related to our specific issues and identification of non-marketing groups that use Whois Data.
2) January 5, 2004: First draft of Notice to non-marketing groups soliciting input on Task Force issues due to the Task Force
3) January 6, 2004: First draft of "needs and justifications" chart due (compiled from pre-existing data)
4) January 12, 2004: Send out Notice to non-marketing groups on "needs and justifications" for Whois data and for soliciting comments on "technical measures adopted for preventing data mining"
5) January 26, 2004: Due date for comments from "non-marketing groups" and "technical measures adopted for preventing data mining"
6) February 1, 2004: Constituency Statements due
7) February 9, 2004: Preliminary data due from ICANN, Registries and Registrars on "changes to agreements" to implement technical measures
8) March 1, 2004: Completion of a Final Report.
The ICANN Rome meeting being the deadline for the preliminary report.
Bruce Tonkin asked for clarification on "preliminary report", defined in the policy development process as the collection of constituency statements, information and public comments which were then discussed and later formed the task force report that was put out for public comment for a period of 20 days.
Bruce Tonkin proposed that the timeline for the WHOIS task force I, which was an extension from the policy development process timeline be presented to the ICANN Board for approval.
Ken Stubbs commented that time lines were too aggressive with the holiday period.
Brian Darville, WHOIS Task Force 3 chair, reported that task force 3 was looking at current techniques that registrars are using to verify their WHOIS data. Questions would be sent to the Registrars on January 5 and they would have till January 15 to respond as that information would be a driver for other information needed. A preliminary report was planned for March 16, just after the ICANN Rome meeting.
Kurt Pritz commented that additional data gathering time would be required to receive all the registrar responses.
Bruce Tonkin suggested a two pronged approach for gathering the registrar's data, sending question to individual registrars and to the registrar's constituency.
Kurt Pritz asked whether a statistical sample of data gathering was possible, to which Bruce Tonkin, from a registrars point of view, responded that it would depend on the questions asked.
Marilyn Cade commented that there would be multiple and overlapping requests for data to ccTLDs, and third parties and as far as possible these should be coordinated.
Bruce Tonkin made the distinction between collecting opinions and data collection and commented that the policy development process did not make provision for data collection. Past practice proved that opinions were better informed if they were based on shared data.
Bruce Tonkin proposed working with the GNSO Secretariat and ICANN staff to produce a spreadsheet of the policy development process based on the milestones in the ICANN bylaws and draw a comparison with the dates that were proposed by the 3 task forces. It would indicate where activities needed to be synchronized and would serve to make a joint statement to the ICANN Board where extra time was needed in the ICANN community.
Bruce Tonkin explained that the GNSO Council would formally have to vote on the recommendation for an extension of time and the ICANN Board would have to approve it as is specified in the ICANN bylaws:
Section 7, Task Forces (b) 2. the specific timeline that the task force must adhere to, as set forth below, unless the Board determines that there is a compelling reason to extend the timeline;
Marilyn Cade commented on a resource issue that affected the timing and suggested that appointing an expert within the task force or retaining a neutral person to do data gathering could be very helpful to the task force process. Bottlenecks could be created in the timing as too much work would depend on one person. The task forces should come up with a relatively consistent timeframe, as the GNSO council would still have to unify policy changes after the task force work was completed.
Kurt Pritz responded that the subject of hiring experts had been discussed and would be approached when statements of work were specifically set out.
Tom Keller expressed concern that appointing such a person could lead to subjective data gathering.
Jordyn Buchanan remarked that given the alignment in dates for task force 2 and 3 there could be an increased burden on ICANN staff and constituencies towards the phase of the final report.
Bruce Tonkin commented that a preliminary or draft report, should be completed by the ICANN Rome meeting.
He suggested deferring the signing off date on a set of time lines for the 3 task forces until the GNSO Council meeting in January when the Council decision could be forwarded to the Board for approval In the mean time, in consultation with the task forces, the GNSO Secretariat and the ICANN staff he suggested doing a reiteration of timeframes that looked at sufficient time for data collection, ensuring input at the Rome meeting, and coordinating the questionnaire distribution.
Bruce Tonkin stated that clarification had been sought on the role of alternates in participation on task force calls.
At its meeting on 20 November, the GNSO Council decided: "That for the purpose of the WHOIS task forces, constituencies be allowed to appoint more than one person to listen in on teleconferences and to participate in the mailing list, but in any single teleconference or physical meeting, there is only one person from the constituency to represent the constituency's views."
Brian Darville, chair of WHOIS task force 3, offered the following approach: "We do allow alternates to speak on issues of general informational interest. The scope of the Task Force's work encompasses gathering and analyzing information. Many of the alternates, some of whom have significant ICANN experience and historical knowledge, can contribute significantly in furthering the Task Force's work by simply providing historical information or indicating the availability of other information germane to the issues the Task Force is addressing. Of course, under no circumstances will any alternate be allowed to represent the views of the constituency or provide the vote of any constituency (unless the designated representative is absent on the call)."
Philip Sheppard suggested that any constituency with more than one representative could decide for a particular call to designate the alternative as spokesman if that person had particular expertise to offer. It could be left to the discretion of the task force chair to decide which information should be accepted and to stop abuse of multiple interventions.
Marilyn Cade added that in previous task forces, the Transfers and WHOIS, where there had been several representatives from one constituency, different people could contribute to the work of the task force but only one person was allowed to speak on a constituency view point and only one person was allowed to vote.
Jeff Neuman suggested that a directive from the GNSO Council would be useful for the future.
Bruce Tonkin proposed posting a directive to Council and the task forces making the distinction between an opinion, where there should be only one per constituency and factual information where the task force chair exercises discretion. . There was general agreement to this approach.
Marc Schneiders commented that fact and opinion were not always clearly defined.
Bruce Tonkin responded that if a constituency had an issue with participation by another constituency they could raise it with the chair of the task force, and if the issue could not be resolved, the constituency could raise the issue with the Council.
Elisabeth Porteneuve, as a liaison from the ccTLD group, announced that WHOIS and WHOIS-related services would be dealt with at the next CENTR General Assembly, in mid-February 2004 in Salzbourg. The CENTR Secretariat was about to start the research and a survey would take place. If the GNSO Council or Whois TF 3 had specific questions on Whois data accuracy, they should be sent to the secretariat who would be happy to include them in CENTR survey. The CENTR plans to start the survey probably by 16 January, and close it two weeks later. An additional two weeks are necessary to write the report. The collected information/results will be available for the Salzburg meeting.
Item 4: Preliminary views from constituencies on the Procedure for use by ICANN in considering requests for consent and related contractual amendments to allow changes in the architecture or operation of a gTLD registry
- the intent of this discussion is to share any preliminary views from constituencies as they develop their constituency statements Item
The GNSO secretariat gave an update on the person for each constituency coordinating the constituency statements:
Grant Forsyth - for the Commercial & Business users constituency.
Antonio Harris for the Internet Service and Connectivity Providers constituency
Jordyn Buchanan for the gTLD registries constituency
J. Scott Evans for Intellectual Property Interests constituency
Marc Schneiders for the Non Commercial users constituency
Registrars constituency - not certain
All constituencies reported that it was probable the deadline of 12 January would be met for constituency statements. The constituency statements would then be collated into a single document.
Bruce Tonkin proposed calling a GNSO Council meeting toward the end of January to conclude an initial report.
Barbara Roseman commented that information should be solicited from other supporting organizations or advisory committees, to which Marilyn Cade added the ccNSO.
Bruce Tonkin, as the GNSO Council chair, proposed formally requesting input from the Security Advisory Committee, the Address Supporting Organization, and the At Large Advisory Committee and the ccNSO.
Item 5 Any Other Business
Philip Sheppard raised the need, especially for communication purposes, to have a short title for:
The Procedure for use by ICANN in considering requests for consent and related contractual amendments to allow changes in the architecture or operation of a gTLD registry.
Barbara Roseman proposed working on a short title for communications.
Philip Sheppard, who had been involved in preparing the original policy development process, proposed a guide for future Issues Reports in the light of experience that had been gained along the process.
Proposed guidelines for the ICANN staff manager's issue report -version 1
Background The staff manager's issue report is the precursor to the GNSO policy development process (PDP).
The PDP is relatively new and there has been a high degree of variation in the quality, length and usefulness of the issues reports so far. This is not surprising since Council and staff are still developing procedures. Therefore, Council proposes guidelines to provide structure for future staff manager issue reports. The goal is to ensure that the materials are directly useful to the work of the Council.
Objective An issue report has three objectives: - Relevance: to confirm an issue is within ICANN's mission, - Description: to explain what the issue is, who it affects, what support there is to address the issue, - Recommendation: to recommend whether or not the GNSO should start a PDP.
The by-laws lay down a structure as to how the above objectives may be met. http://www.icann.org/general/bylaws.htm#AnnexA
What SHOULD NOT be in the issues report The report has a short time frame (15 calendar days).
This tells us that it is NOT intended to contain:
- options for solutions,
- options for how the Council may proceed,
- responses to a formal consultation of constituencies (this comes later if the PDP goes ahead),
- nor should it be necessary to supplement it with documents such as FAQs.
What SHOULD the issues report look like?
It should be the primary document needed for the Council to make a decision whether to proceed or not with a PDP. It should include links to existing documents that provide directly relevant background.
The report must be clear in its recommendation to Council. Past reports have not had this clarity and the GNSO chairman has been obliged to draft terms of reference for a Council WG in an attempt to provide such clarity. It would be more appropriate if the report itself proposed such terms of reference (recognising that Council may choose to modify them). Therefore all future issues reports should contain: - proposed terms of reference for a Council working group drafted in a practical and manageable way and reflecting a possible priority of sub-issues. The length of an issues report will be guided by the topic. Some issues reports may be very short; others may be lengthier but none need be long.
Summary of guidelines
The issue report should:
1. Describe an issue but NOT explore options.
2. Provide directly relevant background and links.
3. Recommend whether to proceed or not.
4. Propose terms of reference for a Council WG.
5. Be provided to Council within the 15 day time frame laid out in the by-
Bruce Tonkin thanked Philip Sheppard for the contribution and suggested that Council members read the document which would be discussed at a later GNSO Council meeting.
Marilyn Cade commented to Kurt Pritz on the change in the schedule for the Rome meeting which could present an imposition on the community that would like to be there during the whole process.
Kurt Pritz responded that there had been much discussion on the issue and that community feedback was useful.
Bruce Tonkin declared GNSO meeting closed, thanked everybody for attending and wished everyone a happy holiday season.
The meeting ended: 13:23 UTC
