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

WHOIS Task Forces 1 and 2 minutes

Last Updated:
31 August 2009
Date

WHOIS Task Forces 1 and 2 Teleconference 14 September, 2004 - Minutes

ATTENDEES:

GNSO Constituency representatives:
gTLD Registries constituency: - Jeff Neuman - Co-Chair
Registrars constituency - Jordyn Buchanan - Co-Chair
gTLD Registries constituency - David Maher
Commercial and Business Users constituency - Marilyn Cade
Internet Service and Connectivity Providers constituency: - Antonio Harris

Internet Service and Connectivity Providers constituency - Maggie Mansourkia

Registrars constituency - Paul Stahura

Registrars constituency - Tom Keller

Intellectual Property Interests Constituency - Steve Metalitz

Intellectual Property Interests Constituency - Jeremy Banks

Intellectual Property Interests Constituency - Niklas Lagergren



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:

Commercial and Business Users constituency - David Fares

Amadeu Abril l Abril

Non Commercial Users Constituency - Milton Mueller - absent, apologies

Non Commercial Users Constituency - Marc Schneiders - absent, apologies



MP3 recording



Agenda

Item 1: Discuss decision tree that Barbara sent out this week

Item 2: Ongoing work plan

Item 3: Explore the possibility of dividing the TF into 3-4 subgroups focusing on certain areas:

Conspicuous Notice Sub Group

Local laws/Regulations Sub Group

Tiered Access Sub group

- Feasibility in general Assuming feasible, what data is included in the anonymous public access vs. the tiered access

Item 4: Discuss possible future issues

Item 5: Timing: dates and events



Each constituency should indicate who are the two participants and alternates to the joint 1 and 2 task force.

David Fares would continue as a Commercial and Business Users Constituency representative until the conclusion of the task force.



Barbara Roseman gave an update on the GNSO Council call on September 9, 2004 and commented that Council had given no directive to the task force.



Item 3:

Subgroups were discussed. It was argued that the role of subgroups would be to split out the work, contribute items and then the subgroups would report to the full group in multiple groups which could lead to greater efficacy.

The task force was not in agreement and did not support the proposal.



Item 1

Barbara Roseman walked the task force through the diagram she had prepared and sent to the task force mailing list.


Steve Metalitz: commented on:

"How do contractual requirements relate to national laws on privacy?" in the chart under Task force 2 progress.

Task Force 2 did not ask the question but made a recommendation that a procedure be adopted so that registrars who believed that they were encountering a conflict with national law could have a path to resolve that where ICANN could also be involved.

Barbara Roseman responded that the language came from the discussion in Kuala Lumpur and would be happy if the task force would like it changed.

Steve Metalitz commented further that there was consensus/support in task force 2 for a procedure which could potentially be delivered in a fairly short order. Hopefully, a procedure for resolving the conflicts when they arose, would be one of the objectives for further work.

Marilyn Cade commented on: "Log the request issue" and asked whether there was agreement about notification of registrants process or was it meant to be 2 separate questions:

a. will there be a white list and if so, what kind?

b. if there is a white list will there be registrant notification?

Barbara Roseman responded that they were 2 separate items in the sense that they tracked differently for the work needed to be done. Presuming that if there was some active information that it was other than public and anonymous and that the issue of notifying registrants would have to be explored when their data was accurate.

Marilyn Cade asked whether the staff was assuming that or was it being assumed from what could be read from the contributions?

Barbara Roseman stated that it was staff 's assumption and it was assumed from what was put forward in the recommendations.

Marilyn Cade pointed out that it was a recommendation and had not been agreed to.

None of the items have achieved full consensus

The two questions could be worked out together or independently.

The chart was not meant to predetermine how issues should be dealt with but was meant to break the issues down into workable chunks.

Jordyn Buchanan commented that the benefit of the chart was that it gave a sense of the right question to ask at each stage of the process and given the answer to that question what the next question would be that followed up as a result. It should be looked upon as an outline for future work, rather than determining the answers.



Steve Metalitz
remarked that the same question appeared at 2 different levels in slightly different wording

" Working group needs to recommend what information needs to be included into tier 1

" what falls into each set of data"

Barbara confirmed that they were restatements of the same question.

Jeff Neuman referred to the 3 items discussed in last call mentioned in the chart and suggested persuing them further:

1. conspicuous notice

2. how registrars would approach conflict with national laws

3. overall idea of tiered access

Maggie Mansourkia's proposal referred to the same topics as a starting point.

Marilyn Cade suggested some parallel processing on tiered access by assigning some work to outside people who would be able to inform the group and have reports come back while the group worked on conspicuous notice and the procedure for conflicts with governments privacy laws. Proposed tiered access needed expert input as there could possibly be significant costs involved in implementing the change across the registrars or registries which they would have to bare.

Jeff Neuman commented that experts, who would likely be volunteers, would be needed on all the issues and that the task force would need to identify experts who could give advice.

Thomas Roessler suggested drafting a proposal and then examining whether it was feasible or not.

Thomas Keller agreed that there should be a proposal before it there was further evaluation.

Marilyn Cade commented that it would be difficult to commit a single proposal to the BC. There needed to be an assessment of feasibility and options before there could be a firm proposal, and suggested that it would be acceptable to examine different options and then have experts advise on the different options.

Marilyn Cade expressed concern about following a direction which could result in a mandate to the registrars which they are unable to agree to on and the task force being led in a direction that was not feasible.

Maggie Mansourkia added that information gathering and hearing from experts would have to happen before determining a proposal which should include feasibility and cost as part of the equation.

Jordyn Buchanan stressed the need for a strategy for going forward with the 3 issues, identifying questions to refer to experts and initial work that should be done on tiered access before determining what questions were appropriate to refer to experts.

Steve Metalitz supported by Tom Keller suggested starting with a specific question from the chart - What work is required for identifying a requestor ? This may have cost, privacy and liability implications.

Tony Harris was of the opinion that identifying the requestor could be a relatively simple procedure with a password, user name and subscription.

Thomas Roessler commented that identity was a vague term and suggested:

Step 1. look at the requirements constituencies have for tiered access so that a defined set of requirements could be implemented

Step 2 What data elements should be collected.

Paul Stahura suggested adding more questions to diagram for the task force to answer

Tony Harris suggested access to a list of ICANN accredited "accessors" who would assist in checking the legitimacy of the investigation

Marilyn Cade reminded the group that people in developing countries should be able to use the solutions

Future work plan



1. Set up three calls in the next few weeks on the following items:



a) Conspicuous notice to registrants on Whois Policies

b) What happens in the event that any ICANN Policies conflict with National Law (i.e., what steps can be taken by the registrars and ICANN in order to address these potential conflicts).

c) With respect to tiered access, the first issue to address is how to identify who is a "requestor."



With each of these subjects, it is important not only to determine what sub-issues are involved in addressing the questions, but also, what experts can be invited to participate and provide the Task Force guidance on these issues.

As an example, for issue #1, it may make sense (if the group agrees) to have legal experts from different countries discuss similar "conspicuous" requirements in contracts in their local jurisdictions.



The role of the experts is to provide the Task Force with advise on the various questions to be used as the Task Force members see fit.



2. Keep the discussions going on these topics through the mailing lists as well.



3. Additional calls may be set up on these topics as determined by the group.



4. Assignments handed out to members of the Task Force on the above issues.

Jeff Neuman and Jordyn Buchanan thanked everyone for their presence and participation.

The call ended at 12:15 EST, 18:15 CET

Next Call: 21 September 2004

see:
GNSO calendar