Re: [council] GNSO Council resolutions passed at the 12 April 2007 meeting

[Mawaki Chango <ki_chango@xxxxxxxxx>]

The minutes didn't seem accurate to me neither. As I was going
through at first look (on screen), I thought maybe I was reading
the reproduction of the current version that would be followed
by the changes, which I didn't sem to locate. Then I thought I'd
print them later on and read them carefully, which I hadn't done
yet before Robin confirmed my first impression of inaccuracy.
Please let make sure the exact changes are transcribed in the
minutes and later in the next iteration of the SoW of the Whois
WG.

Mawaki 

--- Robin Gross <robin@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> There are significant errors below regarding "Motion Two:
> Ratify WHOIS 
> working group statement of work " that need to be corrected. 
> 
> I've gone back and re-listened to the meeting and what was
> sent to us 
> today is not what we agreed to during the call for section 4B
> and the 
> Background Section.
> 
> This is the exact wording that was agreed to by the council
> for 4B:
> "determine how and which legitimate third parties may access 
> registration data that is no longer available for unrestricted
> public 
> access."
> 
> Also, it was agreed that in the background section there would
> be a 
> reference to the 3 decisions including the GNSO's (Wellington)
> April 
> 2006 decision "with 2-3 sentences to summarize what those
> decisions 
> were".  I do not see that below.
> 
> Please change the report below so it reflects what the council
> agreed to.
> 
> Thank you,
> Robin
> 
> 
> GNSO.SECRETARIAT@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> 
> > [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
> 
> 
>