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

WHOIS Task Forces 1 2 3 teleconference minutes

Last Updated:
02 April 2018

WHOIS Task Forces 1 2 3

29 March 2005 - Minutes

GNSO Constituency representatives:
Jordyn Buchanan - Co-Chair
Registrars constituency - Tom Keller
Registrars constituency - Ross Rader
Internet Service and Connectivity Providers constituency - Greg Ruth
gTLD Registries constituency - David Maher
Intellectual Property Interests Constituency - Steve Metalitz
Intellectual Property Interests Constituency - Niklas Lagergren
Non Commercial Users Constituency - Kathy Kleiman
At-Large Advisory Committee (ALAC) liaisons - Thomas Roessler

Bruce Tonkin GNSO Council chair
Suzanne Sene GAC Liaison to GNSO Council -absent

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 - Tim Ruiz
Commercial and Business Users constituency - Marilyn Cade
Commercial and Business Users constituency - David Fares
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 - Marc Schneiders - apologies
Internet Service and Connectivity Providers constituency - Maggie Mansourkia
At-Large Advisory Committee (ALAC) liaisons - Wendy Seltzer

MP 3 Recording

Jordyn Buchanan referring to the DRAFT WHOIS Preliminary Task Force Report commented that the end goal of report was to satisfy requirements of policy ddevelopment process and be published for public comment. It covered the historical record of decisions made and work done but to meet the requirements of a preliminary report, it would have to include the recommendations that were made on improving notice and the impact that was highlighted by the constituency statements.

It was suggested adding an excel spread sheet a summary of George Papapavlou's report, aclu and comments
from annexe to task force 2 report.

Bruce Tonkin commented that the 3 task force reports drafted in 2004, provided a list of options rather than consensus recommendations. The discussions during the meeting in Kuala Lumpur indicated the need for a step by step approach. Task forces 1 and 2 produced 2 recommendations and he understood the next step was to create a mini report on recommendation 1. Marie's report was most useful and combined three preliminary reports. What the task force required now was a preliminary report focusing on one of the consensus recommendations which could be put forward to the Board as was agreed on in Kuala Lumpur.

Steve Metalitz thanked Maria for the excellent job of historical material and suggested using pages 39 – 47 dealing with the recommendation as the preliminary report. He considered that two documents were missing: the registry constituency comments and the summary of the task force 3 report and suggested the public comments be summarized.

Jordyn Buchanan suggested a capsule summary of the task force 2 appendix and the public comments, though not too much time should be spent on work from half a year ago.

Bruce Tonkin suggested calling the report a summary of the preliminary task force reports, numbering the section headings 1.1, 1.2, etc. and extracting the parts related to recommendation 1, which would be the preliminary task force report for recommendation 1.

The Internet Service Providers and Connectivity Providers constituency statement was still outstanding.

Kathy Kleiman cautioned that local law research, summarized into a spreadsheet, should not be confused with the public comments The task force 2 looked at 30 countries, the type of privacy laws and participation in regional processes on Whois or in ICANN and the ccTLDs. She considered this fundamental material for the work going forward. She raised regarding the purpose of the whois and it being part of ICANN ’s mission. Milton felt that it should be deleted as it was a policy statement and there was no consensus on it.

Jordyn Buchanan agreed

David Maher expressed concern about what Milton Mueller was trying to accomplish and thought that Whois was an essential part of security and stability of the internet.
"First, in the opening paragraph, please delete the sentence: "WHOIS is an essential part of ICANN's mission to promote security and stability on the Internet." That would be a policy conclusion - and one on which there is obviously no consensus, either in this TF or in the Internet community as a whole. In fact although ICANN's mission statement is referenced, one can easily see that there is no mention of WHOIS, registrant data, access to that data, or the accuracy of that data in the mission statement. "

He commented that the problem being addressed was that Whois had developed and become totally public which it was never intended to be. He further commented that if Whois was not considered part of the system, it would be an attack on the the central registry system and the internet could not function if there were not somewhere a record of who had a domain name. From a technical standpoint the people who ran networks and root servers should know who created a domain and when and how to get in touch with them. If the concept of a central registry was being attacked then he disagreed with Milton, but if the public aspect was considered then he agreed.

Bruce Tonkin suggested removing the sentence and directly quoting the Registrars Accreditation Agreement (RAA)

Greg Ruth who joined the call explained that the ISP constituency statement was being tracked down.

Jordyn Buchanan stated that it would be needed for the preliminary report.

Kathy Kleiman referred to Milton Mueller's 2nd comment,
Second, in the paragraph on "Previous ICANN work on WHOIS" it would be helpful to add a sentence to the effect that the first whois task force made a decision to defer discussion of privacy issues. That will make it clearer why the GNSO launched a new WHOIS proceeding shortly after the conclusion of the first one.

All agree.

In Summary
From the call on 22 March 2005
Steve Metalitz has volunteered to produce a second draft of recommendation 2 following the call.
Will be taken up after Mar del Plata meetings.

Document Draft WHOIS Preliminary Task Force Rreport is an historical document not part of the pdp.
A portion of to be extracted for the Preliminary report on recommendation 1 which will refer to the historical annex.
Timeline: as soon as possible after the Mar del Plata meetings

Maria Farrell gave an update on Thomas Roessler's question about the February 9, 2005 correspondence from the Federal Trade Commission to ICANN

Jordyn Buchanan thanked everyone for their participation.