[To: council[at]gnso.icann.org]
Dear All,
Ahead of the complete GNSO Council minutes, Council passed the
following motions at its meeting on 12 April 2007.
Motion One: Ratify election results for ICANN Board seat #13
============================================================
The GNSO Council resolved to ratify the election results for ICANN
Board seat number 13 which were 21 votes for Bruce Tonkin, 3
abstentions, 3 votes not cast.
Motion Two: Ratify WHOIS working group statement of work
==========================================================
2. The GNSO Council resolved to accept the WHOIS Working Group Charter
http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg03357.html
(text below) making the changes listed below:
- update the Background section with:
--previous council decisions
http://gnso.icann.org/meetings/minutes-gnso-12apr06.shtml
http://gnso.icann.org/meetings/minutes-gnso-20jul06.shtml
http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg03405.html
--specific reference to the GAC principles
http://gac.icann.org/web/communiques/gac27com.pdf
highlighting the GAC's list of legitimate activities.
http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg03348.html
Section 3: footnote reference to specific section of the Task Force
Report.
Section 4B: place current material in Background
Section 4C: adjust sentence to determine how and which legitimate
third parties can access registration data that is no longer available
for unrestricted public query based access.
WHOIS Working Group Charter
http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg03357.html
1 INTRODUCTION
The GNSO Council voted on 28 March, 2007 to create a Whois Working
Group with a broad, balanced and representative membership to take the
output of the WHOIS task force and carry out further work to address
concerns raised by the community and seek to reach greater consensus
around improvements to the WHOIS service that achieve a balance
between providing contact information adequate to facilitate timely
resolution of any problems that arise in connection with the Register
Name, and the need to take reasonable precautions to protect the data
about any identified or identifiable natural person from loss, misuse,
unauthorized access or disclosure, alteration, or destruction.
2 Background
Whois
ICANN’s agreements with gTLD registrars and gTLD registries require
them to provide data concerning active Registered Names via three
mechanisms: port-43 WHOIS, an interactive web page (often called WHOIS
service), and third-party bulk access. The Registrar Accreditation
Agreement (RAA) spells out which data is collected and which data is
made available. The data includes contact information of natural
persons that includes names, postal addresses, email addresses, fax
and voice telephone numbers.
Whois Policy Development Process (PDP)
The GNSO is approaching the end of a PDP on Whois that should fulfill
terms of reference agreed in June 2005. The terms of reference of the
PDP (http://gnso.icann.org/policies/terms-of-reference.html) are to
make policy recommendations to the Board on:
1. The purpose of the Whois service
2. The purpose of the Whois contacts (ie Registered Name Holder,
technical contact, and administrative contact) and the purpose for
which the data is collected.
3. Which data should be available for public access, and determine
how to access data that is not available for public access.
4. How to improve the process for notifying a registrar of
inaccurate data, and how to improve the process for correcting
inaccurate data.
5. How to deal with any conflicts between the requirements of ICANN
agreements, and local or national privacy laws
Regarding term of reference #5, a Policy on conflicts between Whois
requirements and local or national privacy laws was developed by the
GNSO and approved by the Board on 10 May 2006. A draft Procedure for
Handling Whois Conflicts with Privacy Law has been published on the
ICANN website at
(http://gnso.icann.org/issues/whois-privacy/whois_national_laws_procedure.htm).
The Final Task Force Report on Whois Services was submitted to the
GNSO Council on 12 March, 2007. The Task Force Report and Staff
Discussion Points on Potential Implementation Issues are available at
http://icann.org/announcements/announcement-16mar07.htm. The GNSO
Council met to consider the WHOIS task force report on Saturday 25
March 2007, and also met with the Government Advisory Committee.
Various concerns were raised regarding some of the recommendations in
the report, and subsequently the GNSO Council met on Wednesday 28
March and decided to form a working group to attempt to resolve some
of the issues raised.
3 Objective
The objective of the WG is to examine the issues raised with respect
to the policy recommendations of the task force and make
recommendations concerning how those policies recommendations may be
improved to address these issues.
4 Work Plan
4a Define the roles, responsibilities, and requirements of the
contacts available for unrestricted public query-based access, and
what happens if the responsibilities are not fulfilled.
4b. Determine how third parties may access registration data that
is no longer available for unrestricted public query-based access for
legitimate activities.
The GAC Policy Principles on gTLD Whois Services (dated 28 March 07)
sets out a list of legitimate (subject to applicable national law)
activities, including:
1. Supporting the security and stability of the Internet by
providing contact points for network operators and administrators,
including ISPs, and certified computer incident response teams;
2. Allowing users to determine the availability of domain names;
3. Assisting law enforcement authorities in investigations, in
enforcing national and international laws, including, for example,
countering terrorism-related criminal offences and in supporting
international cooperation procedures. In some countries, specialized
non governmental entities may be involved in this work;
4. Assisting in combating against abusive uses of Information and
Communication Technologies (ICTs), such as illegal and other acts
motivated by racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia, and related
intolerance, hatred, violence, all forms of child abuse, including
paedophilia and child pornography, and trafficking in, and
exploitation of, human beings.
5. Facilitating enquiries and subsequent steps to conduct trademark
clearances and to help counter intellectual property infringement,
misuse and theft in accordance with applicable national laws and
international treaties;
6. Contributing to user confidence in the Internet as a reliable
and efficient means of information and communication and as an
important tool for promoting digital inclusion, e-commerce and other
legitimate uses by helping users identify persons or entities
responsible for content and services online; and
7. Assisting businesses, other organizations and users in combating
fraud, complying with relevant laws, and safeguarding the interests of
the public.
4c Determine whether and how a distinction could be made between
the registration contact information published based on the nature of
the registered name holder (for example, legal vs. natural persons) or
its use of the domain name (for example, commercial versus
non-commercial use)..
5 Participation
The WG will allow for new insights regarding this issue, with people
drawn from the GNSO, members of the GAC, government agencies (such as
law enforcement agencies), and the broader community.
The membership of this WG extends to the following:
• Nominating Committee appointed GNSO councilors
• GNSO constituency members
In addition, observers and liaisons may join the working group on the
following basis:
Observers shall not be members of or entitled to vote on the working
group, but otherwise shall be entitled to participate on equal footing
with members of the working group. In particular observers will be
able to join the mailing list, and attend teleconferences or physical
meetings.
Observers must provide their real name, organization (if associated
with an organization) and contact details to the GNSO secretariat, and
the GNSO secretariat will verify at least their email address and
phone contact information. Observers will also be requested to provide
a public statement of interest, as for working group members.
The GNSO Council will appoint an interim Chair of the WG and the
working group can elect a chair at its first meeting.
6 Working Methods
The WG will work using the following methods:
• Teleconferences, likely to be once a week
• Wiki / other participatory forum or platform for group
decision-making
• Face to face meeting at ICANN Puerto Rico meeting, 25-29 June, 2007.
• Email list
7 Decision-making
The WG will operate using a rough consensus approach. The WG will work
to achieve agreement on positions that most or all of the group
members are willing to support.
For the expression of views, the Working Group will use the following
conventions:
- Agreement – there is broad agreement within the Working Group
(largely equivalent to “rough consensus” as used in the IETF)
- Support – there is some gathering of positive opinion, but
competing positions may exist and broad agreement has not been reached
- Alternative view – a differing opinion that has been expressed,
without garnering enough following within the WG to merit the notion
of either Support or Agreement.
Working with the group, the Chair will have the authority to establish
where agreement/support/alternative views exist.
8 Timeline
The WG will convene within one week of the GNSO Council’s agreement of
its Charter, by 20 April, 2007, latest.
The WG will work to achieve the following targets:
1. Produce for publication on the ICANN website a progress reports
by each of the following dates: 25 May, 2007, and 22 June, 2007.
2. Conclude its work and submit a final report to the GNSO Council
on or before 26 July, 2007.
If the WG has not been able to reach conclusions by 26 July, 2007, it
will terminate its work and report its outcomes to the GNSO Council by
that date.
9 Relevant Documents
The following documents are directly relevant to the work of this
Working Group and should be read by participants before joining the
group:
• Final Task Force Report on Whois Services, including the public
comments report on comments received on the policy proposals from
November 2006 – January 2007;
http://gnso.icann.org/issues/whois-privacy/whois-services-final-tf-report-12mar07.htm
.
• Staff notes on Potential Implementation Issues;
http://gnso.icann.org/issues/whois/staff-discussion-points-whois-final-15mar2007.htm
• Government Advisory Committee Principles regarding gTLD WHOIS
Services http://gac.icann.org/web/communiques/gac27com.pdf
Motion Three: Appoint an interim chair for the WHOIS working group
=============================================================
The GNSO Council resolved to appoint Philip Sheppard as interim Chair
of the Whois Working Group, that Philip would undertake to chair the
group in a neutral manner and undertake to take input from others in
determining what constitutes rough consensus of the Working Group.
Motion Four: Ratify extension to Reserved Names Working Group
statement of
work
=======================================================================
The GNSO Council resolved, per the terms of the original Reserved Name
Working Group (RN-WG) Statement of Work approved by the Council,
http://gnso.icann.org/meetings/minutes-gnso-18jan07.shtml
that the RN-WG is extended for an additional 30 days starting on 11
April 2007 and ending on 10 May 2007 with the tasks defined in the
attached Statement of Work with Philip Sheppard's friendly amendment
that the working group include in the statement of work under: Tasks
regarding Recommendations, 1,a 1: 'explore the issue around ICANN
IANA names' and with the requirement to deliver a final report not
later than 10 May 2007.
Draft Statement of Work for 30-Day Extension of Reserved Names Working
Group (RN-WG)
Original RN-WG Statement of Work
http://gnso.icann.org/meetings/minutes-gnso-18jan07.shtml
will apply as applicable with the following added.
General Tasks
1. Define reserved names per direction provided during meetings in
Lisbon
2. Reorganize the RN-WG report so that recommendations are grouped
in the following categories:
a. Reserved name recommendations ready for input into the New gTLD
PDP report
b. Recommendations for possible use in the New gTLD evaluation
process, not as reserved names
i. Geographical and geopolitical names
ii. Controversial names
c. Categories of names deemed to be out of scope for the RN-WG
i. Three character names at the third level
ii. Registry specific names at the second level
iii. Other reserved names at the second level
3. Review GAC Principles for New gTLDs
4. Review IDN-WG Report
5. Add the GAC Principles for New gTLDs to the RN-WG report and
reference them in applicable name categories
6. Request that the SSAC identify any possible security or
stability issues with regard to RN-WG recommendations as well as
suggestions as to how any such issues might be mitigated
7. Use format specifications to be provided by Liz Williams
Tasks regarding Recommendations
1. ICANN/IANA reserved names
a. Restate recommendations in the RN-WG report so that they can be
readily transferred into the New gTLD PDP report
i. Explore the issue around ICANN IANA names
ii. Confirm that these names are already reserved at the third
level for .name and .pro and edit the document accordingly
iii. Reword recommendation for “example” at all levels for ASCII
and IDN names
1. Provide examples
2. Incorporate any relevant comments from the IDN-WG report
iv. Provide a brief rationale in support of the recommendations,
referring to the role of the category as applicable
b. Finalize guidelines for additional work
2. Use of symbols in Reserved Names
a. Restate recommendations in RN-WG report so that they can be
readily transferred into the New gTLD PDP, including fine-tuning of
language
i. Provide examples as possible
ii. Maintain status quo for now regarding ASCII names
b. Provide a brief rationale in support of the recommendations,
referring to the role of the category as applicable
3. Single & two-character reserved names
a. Consult further with IDN experts regarding single and
two-character IDN names including definition of the term ‘character’
as it relates to non-roman scripts
b. Consult further with experts in the technical community
regarding single letter ASCII names, single-number ASCII names and
two-character ASCII names involving at least one number.
c. Consult with the GAC as possible regarding single and
two-character IDN names
d. Restate recommendations in RN-WG report so that they can be
readily transferred into the New gTLD PDP report
i. Provide examples as possible for both the top and second levels,
ASCII and IDN, single and two-character
ii. Incorporate any relevant comments from the IDN-WG report
e. Provide a brief rationale in support of the recommendations,
referring to the role of the category as applicable
f. Finalize guidelines for additional work for ASCII single
character names at all levels
g. As necessary, finalize guidelines for additional work for IDN
single and two-character names at all levels
4. Tagged names
a. Restate recommendations in RN-WG report so that they can be
readily transferred into the New gTLD PDP report
i. To ensure clarity, change all occurrences of ‘in the third and
fourth character positions’ to ‘in both the third and fourth character
positions’
ii. Move recommendation 2 for IDN gTLDs from ASCII, top level to
IDN top level
iii. In recommendation 2 for IDN gTLDs, change wording to use the
terms ‘ASCII compatible encoding’ and ‘Unicode display form’
iv. Provide examples, including an example of what new applicants
for an IDN gTLD would have to provide
v. Incorporate any relevant comments from the IDN-WG report
b. Provide a brief rationale in support of the recommendations,
referring to the role of the category as applicable
5. NIC, Whois and www
a. Restate recommendations in RN-WG report so that they can be
readily transferred into the New gTLD PDP report
i. Provide examples
ii. Incorporate any relevant comments from the IDN-WG report
b. Provide a brief rationale in support of the recommendations,
referring to the role of the category as applicable
6. Geographical & geopolitical names
a. Review the GAC Principles for New gTLDs with regard to
geographical and geopolitical names
b. Consult with WIPO experts regarding geographical and
geopolitical names and IGO names
c. Consult with the GAC as possible
d. Reference the treaty instead of the Guidelines and identify
underlying laws if different than a treaty
e. Consider restricting the second and third level recommendations
to unsponsored gTLDs only
f. Restate recommendations in RN-WG report for possible use in the
New gTLD evaluation process, not as reserved names
i. Describe process flow
ii. Provide examples as possible
iii. Incorporate any relevant comments from the IDN-WG report
g. Provide a brief rationale in support of the recommendations,
referring to the role of the category as applicable
h. Edit other text of the individual subgroup report as applicable
to conform with the fact that geographical and geopolitical names will
not be considered reserved names
i. Finalize guidelines for additional work as necessary
7. Third level names
a. Replace recommendations with a statement about the direction by
the Council that this category is not in the scope of the RN-WG
b. Edit other text of the individual subgroup report as applicable
with the statement regarding scope
8. gTLD names at the 2nd (or 3rd level if applicable)
a. Complete consultation with gTLD registries and incorporate final
results in the RN-WG report
b. Determine whether final recommendations can be made
c. State recommendations in RN-WG report so that they can be
readily transferred into the New gTLD PDP report
i. Provide examples
ii. Incorporate any relevant comments from the IDN-WG report
d. Provide a brief rationale in support of the recommendations,
referring to the role of the category as applicable
e. If additional work is needed, finalize guidelines for that work
9. Other names at the second level
a. Replace recommendations with a statement about the direction by
the Council that this category is not in the scope of the RN-WG
b. Edit other text of the individual subgroup report as applicable
with the statement regarding scope
10. Controversial names
a. Review the GAC Principles for New gTLDs with regard to
controversial names
b. Consult with the GAC as possible
c. Consider the possibility of creating a disputed name list (not a
reserved name list) that would be updated whenever controversial names
are rejected and would be used for guideline purposes only
d. Restate recommendations in RN-WG report for possible use in the
New gTLD evaluation process, not as reserved names
i. Describe process flow
ii. Provide examples as possible
iii. Incorporate any relevant comments from the IDN-WG report
e. Provide a brief rationale in support of the recommendations,
referring to the role of the category as applicable
f. Edit other text of the individual subgroup report as applicable
to conform with the fact that controversial names will not be
considered reserved names
g. Finalize guidelines for additional work as necessary
Schedule
1. Restart date: Wednesday, 11 April
2. Completion date: Monday, 10 May
Please let me know if you would like any changes made.
Thank you.
Kind regards,
Glen