4 November 2003. Proposed agenda and related documents
List of attendees:
Philip Sheppard - Commercial & Business users C.
Marilyn Cade - Commercial & Business users C.
Grant Forsyth - Commercial & Business users C. - absent, apologies, proxy to Marilyn Cade/Philip Sheppard
Greg Ruth - ISCPC
Antonio Harris - ISCPC
Tony Holmes - ISCPC -
Thomas Keller- Registrars
Ken Stubbs - Registrars
Bruce Tonkin - Registrars
Jeff Neuman - gTLD remote participation * proxy to Jordyn Buchanan
Jordyn Buchanan - gTLD
Cary Karp - gTLD
Ellen Shankman - Intellectual Property Interests C.
Niklas Lagergren - Intellectual Property Interests C.
Lynda Roesch - Intellectual Property Interests C. - absent, apologies, proxy to Ellen Shankman
Milton Mueller - Non Commercial users C. - remote participation * proxy to Chun Eung Hwi
Chun Eung Hwi - Non Commercial users C.
Gabriel Pineiro - Non Commercial users C. - absent, apologies, proxy to Chun Eung Hwi
Alick Wilson
Demi Getschko
Amadeu Abril I Abril
* proxy votes were noted in case of connection failure 16 Council Members
Dan Halloran - ICANN Secretary
Audri Mukhopadhyay - GAC Liaison
Thomas Roessler- ALAC Liaison
Glen de Saint G�ry - GNSO Secretariat
Real Time Captioning
Quorum present at 14:05 local time, Carthage, Bruce Tonkin chaired this teleconference. - Item 1: Approval of the Agenda
Proposed Items for Any Other Business:
Amadeu Abril I Abril: Status of selection of new members
Marilyn Cade: Interim round of sponsored TLDs
Ellen Shankman: Enforcement issue
.
Agenda approved
- Item 2: Summary of last meetings:
September
October
Ken Stubbs moved the adoption of the minutes.
The motion was carried unanimously.
Decision 1: Motion adopted.
Item 3. Actions arising from last meeting
- Request to the Board to consider continuing 3 representatives per constituency was on the ICANN Board agenda for the Carthage meeting
- Status of constituency elections: Four out of six constituencies have completed elections.
- Amadeu Abril I Abril proposed observer status for current constituency members whose constituency elections would not be complete by the end of the annual general meeting.
- Niklas Lagergren, representing the Intellectual Property Interests Constituency, status was clarified, as a new Council member whose term expires at the end of the annual meeting in 2005.
- Item 4. WHOIS terms of reference from GNSO WHOIS Steering Committee
Divided into three areas:
(1) Restricting access to WHOIS data for marketing purposes
(2) Review of data collected and displayed
(3) Improving accuracy of collected data
Bruce Tonkin, in summary stated that the WHOIS Privacy Steering Committee had met since Montreal to consider the 25 issues highlighted in the Staff Manager's WHOIS Privacy Issues report as well as discussions that arose from the Montreal workshop. The constituencies had prioritized 5 issues that were published on the GNSO website. As a result the committee divided the issues into three main areas:
- data mining of port 43 and interactive whois for marketing purposes
- informing registrants at the time of registration what data is collected and how it would be made available to others, what data should be collected and what data should be displayed
- accuracy
Discussion was invited on the terms of reference for each area which had been defined.
Area 1: Restricting access to WHOIS data for marketing purposes
Minor changes in the language were proposed by Jeff Neuman, Marilyn Cade and Chun Eung Hwi.
Bruce Tonkin proposed voting to accept the revised Description of Work in area one.
The Description of Work in area 1, Restricting Access to WHOIS data for marketing purposes
Unanimously accepted by Council
Decision 2 :The Description of Work in Area one, Restricting Access to WHOIS data for marketing purposes, accepted as the guidelines for starting the policy development process.
Area 2: Review of data collected and displayed.
Bruce Tonkin stated that there were different views in the second area.
The description of work set out a first step in a short timeframe, which would be to examine the current methods by which Registrars and their resellers informed registrants of the purpose for which data was collected and how that data would be released to the public. The second phase, would be to list and analyze the existing uses of data elements captured at registration and achieve a balance between the interests of those seeking good contactability and those seeking privacy protection, which is a more controversial issue.
In the discussion, concern was expressed that the prioritization of 5 top issues by each constituency was not respected and that the description of work went beyond identified issues.
Bruce Tonkin pointed out that it was the first time such a process had been undertaken and those who felt the descriptions were inappropriate could vote against them.
An additional task/milestone was proposed:
3. Consider options for limiting the amount of data made available for public access, if any.
The purpose was to make a distinction between the amount of data collected for contactability and the amount of data displayed to the public that was causing a privacy problem.
Bruce Tonkin proposed voting to accept the revised Description of Work in area 2
Review of data collected and displayed
22 votes in favour, 5 abstentions: Intellectual Property Interests Constituency, Chun Eung Hwi and Gabriel Pineiro.
Motion Carried (note Chun Eung Hwi subsequently indicated his support)
Decision 3: Description of Work in area 2 Review of data collected and displayed, accepted as the guidelines for starting the policy development process.
Area 3: Improving Accuracy of collected data
Bruce Tonkin summarized the tasks:
- collect information on the current techniques that registrars use to verify that the data collected is correct. For example techniques to detect typing errors by registrants intending to provide correct information. Survey approaches used by cctlds to verify that the contact data collected is correct.
- collect information on techniques used by other online service providers (where there is no physical contact with the registrant and no physical delivery of goods or services) to verify that data collected is correct.
- create a best practices document for improving data verification based on the information collected that can be applied on a global basis
- determine whether any changes are required in the contracts to specify what data verification is necessary at time of collection to improve accuracy
- determine what verification mechanisms can be used cost effectively to combat the deliberate provision of false information, and determine whether additional mechanisms are necessary to provide traceability of registrants, or provide for more timely responses for misuse of domain names associated with deliberately false information.
Chun Eung Hwi proposed removing the quote from the OECD Privacy Guidelines and protection and replacing it with the links only to the documents:
The work of several groups has been sited by parts of the GNSO community as having a bearing on the need for improved accuracy, including the OECD Guidelines for Consumer Protection in the Context of Electronic Commerce (PDF), Implementing the OECD Privacy Guidelines in the Electronic Environment: Focus on the Internet (PDF), and the ICANN Security and Stability Committee.
It was suggested that details concerning verification of or maintenance approaches for deliberately false information should be removed and replaced with an acknowledgment that there may be mechanisms outside of Whois to address this issue.
Jeff Neuman proposed wording to add "costs" into verifying that the collected information is accurate.
- collect publicly available information on the techniques used by other online service providers (to verify that data collected is correct) as well as information on the price of services offered by the online service provider.
Jordyn Buchanan pointed out that the task force should not be concerned with deciding what information should be mandatory, but rather accepting that mandatory information as stipulated in the Registrars Accreditation Agreement should be accurate, thus it was proposed adding:
The Task Force will not consider the accuracy for data that is not mandatory, and will not consider which elements should be mandatory.
Bruce Tonkin proposed voting to accept the revised Description of Work in Area 3
Improving Accuracy of collected data
Unanimously accepted by the GNSO Council
Decision 4: Description of Work in Area 3 Improving Accuracy of collected data, accepted as the guidelines for starting the policy development process.
Item 5. Decision regarding WHOIS task force structure
Two options were discussed by the GNSO WHOIS Steering Committee, assuming all three areas being studied at the same time, and multiple representatives from each constituency to resource the workload
(1) A single task force with 3 working groups
(2) Three separate task forces
Bruce Tonkin, in considering the options open to Council, noted that in the next 6 to 12 months, besides the WHOIS issues, the introduction of New Registry services and the UDRP would have to be prioritized in terms of Council and ICANN staff resources.
After some discussion the Council identified the following priority order for issues in 2004: registry services, WHOIS, new gtlds, enforcement, and UDRP.
Concern was expressed about the 90 day time limit in the policy development process and the limited resources available to meet the deadline.
Bruce Tonkin, after considering the discussion, proposed forming three groups, preferring not to set a deadline on each, but that each group reviews the requirements, estimate a realistic timeframe taking into account their resources, and if it would be longer than the 90-day period, Council could seek approval from the Board for an extension to the time frame.
Bruce Tonkin, seconded by Thomas Keller, proposed:
That Three Task Forces be formed to look, at the three areas of WHOIS;
- that the Council has procedures in place to ensure that the three task forces communicate with each other;
- that the council will request those task forces to come back to the council with a timetable for achieving their work
- and that it will be in the context of the ICANN bylaws process.
Unanimously accepted by the GNSO Council
Decision 5: That Three Task Forces be formed to look, at the three areas of WHOIS;
that the Council has procedures in place to ensure that the three task forces communicate with each other;
that the council will request those task forces to come back to the council with a timetable for achieving their work and that it will be in the context of the ICANN bylaws process.
Audri Mukhopadhyay asked for clarification on the nature of the participation of the GAC liaison on the task force.
Item 6. Motion for an Issues Report on New TLDs :
With reference to Section II.C.8
"Continue the process of implementing new top level domains (TLDs), which process shall include consideration and evaluation of:
a. The potential impact of new TLDs on the Internet root server system and Internet stability;
b. The creation and implementation of selection criteria for new and existing TLD registries, including public explanation of the process, selection criteria, and the rationale for selection decisions;
c. Potential consumer benefits/costs associated with establishing a competitive environment for TLD registries; and,
d. Recommendations from expert advisory panels, bodies, agencies, or organizations regarding economic, competition, trademark, and intellectual property issues.
Define and implement a predictable strategy for selecting new TLDs using straightforward, transparent, and objective procedures that preserve the stability of the Internet (strategy development to be completed by September 30, 2004 and implementation to commence by December 31, 2004)."
Motion proposed by Milton Mueller:
In order to facilitate compliance with Section II.C.8 of the Memorandum of Understanding between the U.S. Department of Commerce and ICANN, the GNSO Council requests that the Staff Manager produce an Issues Report on the creation and implementation of a regularly scheduled procedure and objective selection criteria for new TLD registries.
Bruce Tonkin noted that the agenda item and the motion arose from a process over the last year where the ICANN Board had been considering, in the short term, introducing a number of sponsored TLDs as an extension of the original trial. The Council also noted that a formal policy development process should be used to determine how to create completely new gTLDs in the future. Thus the question was whether to request the ICANN staff to produce an issues report or wait until the Board and the ICANN staff came back with what they were planning to do. If the motion proposed by Milton Mueller were to be accepted, the viability of producing an issues report within 15 days was questioned, given the requirements for other matters and given that ICANN is planning to set out a time frame for new gTLDs. It was also mentioned that the deadline in the MOU for new gTLDs was September 2004.
Amadeu Abril I Abril proposed tabling the motion until the next meeting.
Bruce Tonkin, seconded by Marilyn Cade proposed a procedural motion to table the motion proposed by Milton Mueller:
In order to facilitate compliance with Section II.C.8 of the Memorandum of Understanding between the U.S. Department of Commerce and ICANN, the GNSO Council requests that the Staff Manager produce an Issues Report on the creation and implementation of a regularly scheduled procedure and objective selection criteria for new TLD registries.
Unanimously accepted by the GNSO Council
Decision 6: Table the motion proposed by Milton Mueller until the next Council meeting.
Item 9: Any Other Business
A. Interim round of sponsored TLDs
Bruce Tonkin referred to an issue raised by Jeff Neuman that the Council's advice was to go ahead with the process of the limited introduction of sponsored TLDs but the ICANN Board appeared to be either delaying or not going ahead with the process.
Marilyn Cade emphasized the fact that Council was asked for advice and all behavioural indications were that ICANN accepted the advice to move forward with a sponsored round of gTLDs.
Bruce Tonkin quoted from the Preliminary Board report of the October 13, Meeting
"...Board members remarked on the significant staffing constraints for ICANN at present, and the foreseen lack of an ability for ICANN to both oversee a round of new sTLD applications, and also invest significant resources and time in gathering and analyzing data on gTLD issues.
The Board noted the lengthy list of tasks set forth in ICANN�s new MoU with the Department of Commerce entered into on 17 September ...
..... In summarizing the views expressed on the topic, Mr. Cerf noted the discussion among the Board did not seem supportive of moving forward with a limited round of new sTLDs at this time. ..."
Discussion was in support of seeking clarification from the ICANN Board why there was a possibility of suspending the limited introduction of sponsored TLDs.
Philip Sheppard proposed to Reference the Annual General meeting in Amsterdam meeting where it was
Resolved [02.151] that the Board requests the GNSO to provide a recommendation by such time as shall be mutually agreed by the President and the Chair of the GNSO Names Council on whether to structure the evolution of the generic top level namespace and, if so, how to do so;
Dan Halloran put the full Preliminary Board report of October 13, before Council
Preliminary Report Special Meeting of the Board 13 October 2003
Discussion of New sTLDs RFP Mr. Twomey reviewed for the Board comments of broad interest received on the draft RFP, and considerations raised by the community and Board members on the creation of new sTLDs and new TLDs generally. Significant issues raised included whether to limit a new round for creation of new sTLDs to prior applicants, or allow a wider participant group in the application process, and what timeline for the consideration of new sTLDs, and eventually new generic TLDs was feasible and responsible in light of work to be done. A suggestion was that gTLD specific issues be set aside until these issues could be reviewed and examined in detail, expert analysis could be undertaken and community input received. Further, it was noted that the nature of TLD relationships with ICANN was a structure under much debate at present, and deserved a better understanding of the goals of the parties prior to expanding the number of these relationships. Board members remarked on the significant staffing constraints for ICANN at present, and the foreseen lack of an ability for ICANN to both oversee a round of new sTLD applications, and also invest significant resources and time in gathering and analyzing data on gTLD issues.
The Board noted the lengthy list of tasks set forth in ICANN�s new MoU with the Department of Commerce entered into on 17 September specifically called for the development of a strategy and process for the creation of new TLDs by September 2004. In particular, the board debated the wisdom in moving ahead with the creation of new TLDs at this time, in light of the need to shortly commence a full scale review of policy in this area. A brief debate ensued among Board members as to the appropriate set of issues that should be included in a review and development of policy relating to the creation of new TLDs. Board members voiced concerns that many of the TLDs created during the 2000 round were still struggling with myriad acceptance and distribution issues, and that these issues should be carefully examined and addressed to the extent possible prior to considering the creation of new TLDs on a large-scale basis.
Discussion ensued among the Board members; in particular, board members focused on the short time frame set forth in the new MoU for the development of strategy and policy in this area, and concerns that any action on sTLDs at present would detract from that effort, and possibly result in an discordant result. In summarizing the views expressed on the topic, Mr. Cerf noted the discussion among the Board did not seem supportive of moving forward with a limited round of new sTLDs at this time. The Board did express a cohesive interest in moving forward with development of strategy and policy on TLDs generally, encompassing both sTLDs and gTLDs, on as expedited a process as feasible.
Board members noted an appreciation of the importance to the community of this topic, and the intent to make a statement to the community on the Board�s views on the topic as soon possible.
Philip Sheppard proposed the following motion:
The Council, as the bottom up policy development body for the gTLDs, requests clarification as to the whether the Board is changing its Amsterdam 2002 commitment to the community to go forward with the process for an interim round of sponsored TLDs, and if so why. The Council expresses strong concern that the Board may have taken a decision in this policy area without consulting Council.
The motion was passed unanimously by the GNSO Council.
Decision 7: The Council, as the bottom up policy development body for the gTLDs, requests clarification as to the whether the Board is changing its Amsterdam 2002 commitment to the community to go forward with the process for an interim round of sponsored TLDs, and if so why. The Council expresses strong concern that the Board may have taken a decision in this policy area without consulting Council.
Item 7. Summary of top 5 UDRP issues
Bruce Tonkin stated that there was a report listing the top 5 Universal Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP) issues by constituency on the GNSO website. The issues were fairly spread, no one issue had more than three constituencies' support which indicated that there was no strong issue requiring attention and that further work could be undertaken after the WHOIS and the New Registry Services work was complete in 2004.
Item 8. Budget update.
GNSO Secretariat to provide:
- report on current balance of GNSO account
- procedures in place by ICANN to manage the account on behalf of the GNSO.
The Secretary reported that after all payments had been made, the unencumbered funds amounted to $24.923.63.
Bruce Tonkin stated that Council needed to make a decision who had the authority to operate on the GNSO account that would continue to be managed by ICANN.
Bruce Tonkin proposed that:
The GNSO Secretariat could authorize expenditure from the GNSO account as authorized by the GNSO Council chair to a limit of $1,000 U.S.
The motion was passed unanimously by the GNSO Council.
Decision 8: The GNSO Secretariat could authorize expenditure from the GNSO account as authorized by the GNSO Council chair to a limit of $1,000 U.S.
Item 9: Any Other Business
B. Enforcement issue
Ellen Shankman stated that the ICANN President and some constituencies had raised "enforcement" as a key issue to be placed on ICANN's high priority list.
Ellen Shankman went on to say that it became clear many of the Board members were concerned about using enforcement of the contracts because they felt they did not have any alternatives and since pulling the contract was the only option, they were reluctant to exercise such punitive measures.
In this context it was suggested that the GNSO Council looked at enforcement and requested a policy development process with one of the aspects for consideration the creation of a variety, and a menu of possible responses which the Board could consider for action.
Bruce Tonkin thanked Ellen Shankman for the contribution and proposed scheduling it for a future meeting.
Bruce Tonkin declared GNSO meeting closed, and thanked everybody for attending.
The meeting ended: 17 :47 local time Next GNSO Council teleconference: Thursday November 20, 2003 at 20:00 UTC
see: http://gnso.icann.org/calendar/ |
