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

WHOIS Task Forces 1 2 3 teleconference minutes

Last Updated:
31 August 2009
Date

WHOIS Task Forces 1 2 3



22 March 2005 - Minutes

ATTENDEES:
GNSO Constituency representatives:
Jordyn Buchanan - Co-Chair

Registrars constituency - Tom Keller

Commercial and Business Users constituency - Marilyn Cade

Commercial and Business Users constituency - David Fares
Internet Service and Connectivity Providers constituency - Greg Ruth
gTLD Registries constituency - David Maher
Intellectual Property Interests Constituency - Steve Metalitz

Liaisons

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



Ex-officio

Bruce Tonkin GNSO Council chair

Suzanne Sene GAC Liaison to GNSO Council



ICANN Staff:

Olof Nordling - Manager of Policy Development Coordination

Maria Farrell Farrell - GNSO Policy Officer



GNSO Secretariat - Glen de Saint Géry



Absent:

gTLD Registries constituency: - Jeff Neuman Neuman - Co-Chair

Registrars constituency - Paul Stahura

Registrars constituency - Ross Rader

Registrars constituency - Tim Ruiz

Internet Service and Connectivity Providers constituency: - Antonio Harris - apologies

Intellectual Property Interests Constituency - Jeremy Bank

Non Commercial Users Constituency - Milton Mueller

Non Commercial Users Constituency - Kathy Kleiman

Non Commercial Users Constituency - Marc Schneiders - apologies

Internet Service and Connectivity Providers constituency - Maggie Mansourkia

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



MP3 Recording

Agenda

1. Moving forward on Recommendation 1 - status on the report being prepared by staff

2 Moving forward on Recommendation 2 after dalogue with ICANN staff

3. Moving forward on Accuracy

4. Plans for Argentina



Task Force Participants in Mar del Plata

Jordyn Buchanan, Bruce Tonkin, Tom Keller, Marilyn Cade, Jeff Neuman, Paul Stahura, Ross Rader, Tim Ruiz , Antonio Harris, Marc Schneiders, Ken Stubbs, Greg Ruth, Ross Rader, Kiyoshi Tsuru, Niklas Lagergren Vittorio Bertola, Bret Fausett, Suzanne Sene, Frannie Wellings.



Discussion followed on aligning the current work in the task force and reports to the policy development process.

As the process has been going on so long it was suggested that the document should have a review of the ICANN mission, issues raised in the issues report and how the recommendations relate to those. The terms of reference should be consolidated into one.



A suggested tool was that the policy development process be clearly set out in a tabular/diagram form with the different timelines and that an outline for the reports be drafted.

Quoting from the Policy development Process

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:

1. A clear statement of any Supermajority Vote position of the task force on the issue;

2. If a Supermajority Vote was not reached, 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.



Basically the preliminary report could be completed by putting the task force into the framework set out by the policy development process for one single issue .

Bruce Tonkin suggested a summary document to the preliminary report to put the issue in context.

Marilyn Cade suggested that the Secretary should go back to the minutes to look at the Council decisions that were taken regarding the task forces.



Jordyn Buchanan
summarized the agreement reached in the group:

The preliminary report should be focused on the issues around the first work item

A reasonable amount of history is required to provide appropriate comprehension to the reader.

Relevant terms of reference



History should be related to decisions, rather than everything that has been discussed. Researching the minutes, researching the official reports, minutes of decisions made at the Council level, the terms of reference and how the work addresses those terms of reference.



In summary of the comment period, when the preliminary report is produced by staff, it goes to the vote in the task force, within 5 days the task force report is prepared and then submitted for the 20 day public comment period as in :

Section 9

Public Comments to the Task Force Report or Initial Report

a. The public comment period will last for twenty (20) calendar days after posting of the Task Force Report or Initial Report. Any individual or organization may submit comments during the public comment period, including any constituency that did not participate in the task force. All comments shall be accompanied by the name of the author of the comments, the author's relevant experience, and the author's interest in the issue.

b. At the end of the twenty (20) day period, the Staff Manager will be responsible for reviewing the comments received and adding those deemed appropriate for inclusion in the Staff Manager's reasonable discretion to the Task Force Report or Initial Report (collectively, the "Final Report"). The Staff Manager shall not be obligated to include all comments made during the comment period, including each comment made by any one individual or organization.

c. The Staff Manager shall prepare the Final Report and submit it to the Council chair within ten (10) calendar days after the end of the public comment period.



ACTION

It was decided that at the next meeting, Tuesday 29, the task force would vote on the Preliminary report.

Issues concerning the vote were raised.

It was suggested that Bruce Tonkin request clarification form the General Counsel on voting in the task force.


Bruce Tonkin commented that it was important to document the vote in theTask Force report for the benefit of the Council. The Council's vote in turn will be considered by the Board. He went on to comment that liaisons did not vote. According to the ICANN bylaws, the structure of a task force appointed by the Council consists of a minimum of one representative per constituency and then the Council could appoint up to 3 external advisors.



Appointment of representatives to the 3 WHOIS task forces

At the GNSO Council meeting on November 20, 2003 the following motion was passed.


Decision 3: 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.

At a meeting of the GNSO Council meeting on December 18, 2003 there was a discussionregarding the role of alternate constituency representatives during task force meetings.

As a result, on 19 December 2003 Bruce Tonkin posted the following summary of the discussions to the GNSO Council:


At its meeting on 20 Nov, 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."

Following initial meetings of the WHOIS task forces, clarification was sought on when it would be appropriate for constituency representatives, attending a teleconference or physical meeting as alternates to the primary constituency representative, to speak.

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)."

The GNSO Council discussed this issue during its meeting on 18 Dec 2003.

It was recognised that alternates play a valuable role in task force work in using their own network of contacts and resources to collect data together for the task force. Normally alternates would provide their work through the primary constituency representative on the task force. It was noted however that during a particular call or physical meeting an alternate may have some useful "factual" information to provide that is relevant to the discussion. Note that ICANN staff members and the GAC liaison have typically operated in that mode during GNSO council calls. It was noted that a balance needs to be struck between alternates offering information that might be strongly related to a particular constituency viewpoint (e.g isolated events, anecdotal information, or a reference to a Web blog or an academic paper expressing a particular opinion) as opposed to factual information (e.g a reference to an existing ICANN policy, or a reference to a previous statistical survey, or ICANN workshop).



The Council recommended that the chair of each task force be given the discretion to take advantage of the availability of alternate members for the purposes of providing factual information, whilst ensuring that each constituency expresses their particular opinion/viewpoint on the policy issue under consideration through a single representative during any single call or physical meeting. If a particular constituency believes that the intent of the motion of 20 Nov (which ensures fair participation by all constituencies regardless of their size and resources) is not being met, this should be raised with the chair of the task force, through their representative on the task force. If a constituency is unable to resolve the issue with the task force chair, then the constituency can request guidance from the GNSO Council, through their representatives on the GNSO Council. "

2. Moving forward on Recommendation 2 after dialogue with ICANN staff

Jordyn Buchanan referred to the summary document that Maria Farrell had provided.

He commented that many or all of the staff concerns could be addressed and suggested reviewing and adjusting the recommendations on the next week call 29 March 2005.

Jordyn Buchanan suggested that the recommendation be edited to take into account the suggestions made by staff and then decide whether it should be advanced as a formal policy recommendation or other.



ACTION

It was suggested that the original drafter, Steve Metalitz be asked, by email as he had dropped off the call, to take ownership of the redrafting.


3. Moving forward on Accuracy


Bruce Tonkin asked Glen to gather previous reports and recommendations on the Accuracy topic for him.



4. Plans for Argentina

On Sunday 3 April 2005 a joint session with the GNSO Council and Whois task force meeting is scheduled from 11:00 to 14:00 local time

Topics for joint session:

accuracy and tiered access

Bruce Tonkin would chair the joint Council and Whois session. He intended to look at the original 3 terms of reference and the progress made to date.



Documents to include:

copies of terms of reference,

policy development process,

decision tree from Kuala Lumpur



Suggestions for the GNSO Public Forum on Wednesday 6 April from 8:30 to 10:00 local time

Bruce Tonkin suggested that the Public Forum could provide an educational opportunity to the community. Registrars and ccTLD operators that had previously presented to the task force could be asked how they treated privacy issues so advising the community what is out in the market place. Particularly ones where there was operational experience behind them would be of interest.

Jordyn Buchanan should give an update on where the task force was with their work and the current recommendations.

Questions from the community should be encouraged. Time allocated to the Whois issues would be about half to three quarter of an hour.



Marilyn Cade suggested inviting the chair of the Stability and Security Advisory Committee to address the joint Whois GNSO Council meeting on Sunday.

Jordyn Buchanan suggested two questions:

1. What role does Security and Stability play in the Internet?

2. What would the role be of restricting access to Whois data

Bruce Tonkin commented that the task force was looking for dialogue with the chair of the Stability and Security Advisory Committee (SSAC) rather than a formal statement, as a formal statement would require time for the SSAC to develop.

5 Any Other Business

Queries to the staff about the February 9, 2005 correspondence from the Federal Trade Commission to ICANN.

Olof Nordling commented that the correspondence was not from the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) but from a single commissioner of the FTC and the issue raised was the potential harm that inaccurate Whois information could cause the economy.

Marilyn Cade commented that the correspondence did deal with the accuracy of data.



Next Meetings:

Tuesday 29 March 2005 - 13:00 EST, 19:00 UTC, 20:00 CET.

1. Preliminary task force Report for the vote



Sunday 3 April 2005 - 11:00 - 14:00 local time in Mar del Plata,

Sheraton Hotel, Room "E"



Jordyn Buchanan
thanked everybody for their participation



The meeting ended at 21:45 CET