[council] GNSO Council resolutions 4 March 2009

[Glen de Saint Géry <Glen@xxxxxxxxx>]

Dear Councillors,

Ahead of the formal minutes, please find the resolutions passed at the GNSO 
Open Council meeting in Mexico City on Wednesday, 4 March 2009. Motion 2, the 
Registrar Accreditation Agreement motion, passed unanimously as the one 
absentee vote in favour has been recorded.

Thank you.
Kind regards,

Glen

1. WHOIS Motion
Proposed by: Chuck Gomes
Seconded by: Tony Holmes, Olga Cavalli, Kristina Rosette

GNSO Council motion to pursue cost estimates of selected Whois studies.

Whereas:

In Oct-2007, the Generic Names Supporting Organization (GNSO) Council concluded 
that a comprehensive, objective and quantifiable understanding of key factual 
issues 
regarding the gTLD Whois system would benefit future GNSO policy development 
efforts
(http://gnso.icann.org/resolutions/ )

Before defining the details of these studies, the Council solicited suggestions 
from the 
community for specific topics of study on WHOIS. Suggestions were submitted 
(http://forum.icann.org/lists/WHOIS-comments-2008/ ) and ICANN staff prepared a 
'Report on Public Suggestions on Further Studies of WHOIS', dated 25-Feb-2008 
(http://gnso.icann.org/issues/Whois-privacy/Whois-study-suggestion-report-25feb08.pdf
 )

On 28-Mar-2008 the GNSO Council resolved to form a WHOIS Study Working Group to 
develop a 
proposed list, if any, of recommended studies for which ICANN staff will be 
asked to provide 
cost estimates to the Council 
(http://gnso.icann.org/meetings/minutes-gnso-27mar08.shtml )

The WHOIS Study WG did not reach consensus regarding further studies, and on 
25-Jun-2008 
the GNSO Council resolved to form another group of volunteers (WHOIS Hypotheses 
WG) to 
review the 'Report on Public Suggestions on Further Studies of WHOIS' and the 
GAC letter 
on WHOIS studies. 
(http://www.icann.org/correspondence/karlins-to-thrush-16apr08.pdf)

This WG was tasked to prepare a list of hypotheses to be tested, and to deliver 
a report to the Council. The Whois Hypotheses WG delivered its report to the 
Council on 26-Aug-2008. 
(https://st.icann.org/Whois-hypoth-wg/index.cgi?Whois_hypotheses_wg#Whois_study_hypotheses_wg_final_report
 ).

On 29-Oct-2008 the Registry constituency circulated its recommendations for 
consolidating 
and considering further Whois studies. 
http://gnso.icann.org/drafts/gnso-whois-study-recommendations-ryc-29oct08.pdf

On 5 November 2008 the GNSO Council decided to convene a series of special 
meetings on Whois 
studies, and to solicit further constituency views assessing both the priority 
level and the 
feasibility of the various Whois studies that have been proposed, with the goal 
of deciding 
which studies, if any, should be assessed for cost and feasibility. The Council 
would then 
ask staff to perform that assessment, and, following that assessment, the 
Council would decide 
which studies should be conducted. Council Chair Avri Doria convened a 
volunteer group of 
Councilors and interested constituency members to draft a resolution regarding 
studies, if 
any, for which cost estimates should be obtained. This 'Whois Study Drafting 
Team' is 
tracked on a wiki page at whois discussion.

The Whois Study Drafting Team further consolidated studies and data requested 
by the GAC. 
For each of the consolidated studies, constituencies were invited to assign 
priority rank and 
assess feasibility.5 constituencies provided the requested rankings, while 2 
constituencies 
(NCUC and Registrars) indicated that no further studies were justified.The GAC 
was also 
invited to assign priorities, but no reply was received as of 22-Jan-2009.

The Drafting Team determined that the six studies with the highest average 
priority 
scores should be the subject of further research to determine feasibility and 
obtain cost 
estimates. The selection of these initial studies does not foreclose further 
consideration 
of the remaining studies.

Resolved:

Council requests Staff to conduct research on feasibility and cost estimates 
for the 
 Whois studies listed below, and report its findings to Council as soon as 
possible, 
noting that Staff need not fulfill the full request at once but may fulfill the 
requirements in stages.

Group A (Studies 1, 14, 21 and GAC data set 2): 
Study 1 hypothesis: Public access to WHOIS data is responsible for a material 
number 
of cases of misuse that have caused harm to natural persons whose registrations 
do not 
have a commercial purpose. 
http://forum.icann.org/lists/whois-comments-2008/msg00001.html

Study 14 hypothesis: The Whois database is used only to a minor extent to 
generate 
spam and other such illegal or undesirable activities. 
http://forum.icann.org/lists/whois-comments-2008/msg00017.html

Study 21 and GAC data set 2 hypothesis: There are significant abuses caused by 
public 
display of Whois. Significant abuses would include use of WHOIS data in spam 
generation, 
abuse of personal data, loss of reputation or identity theft, security costs 
and loss of data.http://forum.icann.org/lists/whois-comments-2008/msg00026.html

Study 11. 
Study 11 hypothesis: The use of non-ASCII character sets in Whois records will 
detract 
from data accuracy and readability. 
http://forum.icann.org/lists/whois-comments-2008/msg00014.html

Group B (Studies 13, 17, GAC 1 & GAC 11) 
Study 13 hypotheses: a) The number of proxy registrations is increasing when 
compared 
with the total number of registrations; b) Proxy and private WHOIS records 
complicate the 
investigation and disabling of phishing sites, sites that host malware, and 
other sites 
perpetrating electronic crime as compared with non-proxy registrations and 
non-private 
registrations; c) Domain names registered using proxy or privacy services are 
disproportionately 
associated with phishing, malware, and other electronic crime as compared with 
non-proxy 
registrations or non-private registrations. 
http://forum.icann.org/lists/whois-comments-2008/msg00016.html

Study 17 hypothesis: The majority of domain names registered by proxy/privacy 
services 
are used for abusive and/or illegal purposes. 
http://forum.icann.org/lists/whois-comments-2008/msg00020.html

GAC Study 1 hypothesis: The legitimate use of gTLD WHOIS data is curtailed or 
prevented 
by the use of proxy and privacy registration services.

GAC Study 11 hypothesis: Domain names registered using proxy or privacy 
services are 
disproportionately associated with fraud and other illegal activities as 
compared with non-proxy registrations.

Group E (Studies 3 & 20) 
Study 3 hypothesis: Some proxy and privacy services are not revealing 
registrant/licensee 
data when presented with requests that provide reasonable evidence of 
actionable harm, as 
required to avoid liability under registration agreement provisions that 
reflect the 
requirements of RAA 3.7.7.3. 
http://forum.icann.org/lists/whois-comments-2008/msg00003.html

Study 20 hypothesis: Some proxy and privacy services do not promptly and 
reliably relay 
information requests to and from registrants/licensees. 
http://forum.icann.org/lists/whois-comments-2008/msg00023.html

Group C (GAC Studies 5 & 6) 
GAC Study 5 hypothesis: A significant percentage of registrants who are legal 
entities 
are providing inaccurate Whois data that implies they are natural persons. 
Furthermore the 
percentage of registrants with such inaccuracies will vary significantly 
depending upon the 
nation or continent of registration.

GAC Study 6 hypothesis: A significant percentage of registrants who are 
operating domains 
with a commercial purpose are providing inaccurate Whois data that implies they 
are acting 
without commercial purposes. Furthermore the percentage of registrants with 
such inaccuracies 
will vary significantly depending upon the nation or continent of registration.

Group D (Studies 18, 19, GAC 9 & GAC 10) 
Study 18 hypothesis: The majority of domain names registered by proxy/privacy 
services 
are used for commercial purposes and not for use by natural persons. 
http://forum.icann.org/lists/whois-comments-2008/msg00021.html

Study 19 hypothesis: A disproportionate share of requests to reveal the 
identity of 
registrants who use proxy services is directed toward registrations made by 
natural persons. http://forum.icann.org/lists/whois-comments-2008/msg00022.html

GAC Study 9 hypothesis: A growing and significant share of proxy/privacy 
service users 
are legal persons.

GAC Study 10 hypothesis: A growing and significant share of domains that are 
registered 
using proxy/privacy services are used for commercial purposes.

Council further requests that Staff refer to original study submissions (posted 
at http://forum.icann.org/lists/whois-comments-2008/ ), for statements of how 
study results could lead to an 
improvement in Whois policy. Many submitters also described the type of 
survey/study needed, 
including data elements, data sources, population to be surveyed, and sample 
size.

Staff is invited to pursue creative ways to develop cost estimates for these 
studies, including re-formulations of the suggested hypotheses.At any time, 
Staff may come back to Council with questions regarding study hypotheses. 
Staff is also requested to consider the results obtained 
from the ALAC on its priorities for studies and include any of studies that,
based on the same prioritization, fit in the groups designated in this 
resolution.

Council further requests that Staff communicate the resolution to GAC 
representatives once 
it has been approved.

The motion passed unanimously by voice vote:

Chuck Gomes, Jordi Iparraguirre (Registry constituency); Greg Ruth, Tony 
Harris, Tony Holmes (ISP); Mike Rodenbaugh, Philip Sheppard, Zahid Jamil 
(CBUC); Tim Ruiz, Stéphane van Gelder, Adrian inderis (Registrars) Olga 
Cavalli, Avri Doria, Terry Davis -remote participation (NCA); Mary Wong, Carlos 
Souza, Bill Drake (NCUC) Kristina Rosette, Cyril Chua - remote (IPC).

Absent: Edmon Chung (Registry constituency), Ute Decker (IPC).

2. Registrar Accreditation Agreement (RAA) motion
===================================================

Motion made by Tim Ruiz
Seconded by Kristina Rosette

Whereas, the Registrar Accreditation Agreement (RAA) has not been amended since 
May 2001, and ICANN has undertaken a lengthy consultative process related to 
amending the RAA, including several public comment periods and consultations;

Whereas, the proposed changes to the RAA include important compliance and 
enforcement tools for ICANN; The Council wishes to approve the set of proposed 
amendments as quickly as possible so that the ICANN Board may review them, and 
if approved then implement them as quickly as possible; and

Whereas,

The Council would like to proceed on the drafting of a charter identifying 
registrant rights that registrars would be obliged to link to, as contemplated 
in the set of amendments;

The Council would like a specific process and timeline to move forward with 
additional potential amendments to the RAA; and

The Registrar Constituency is supportive of these efforts and is willing to 
participate on a good faith basis on anticipated next steps.

Resolved:

The GNSO Council supports the RAA amendments as documented in 
http://gnso.icann.org/drafts/current-list-proposed-raa-amendments-16dec08.pdf
and recommends to the Board that they be adopted at its meeting of March 6, 
2009;

Within 30 days of Board approval of the set of amendments, representatives from 
the GNSO community and the ALAC shall be identified to participate in drafting 
a registrant rights charter, as contemplated by the amendments and the current 
GNSO Council discussions, with support from ICANN staff. A draft charter shall 
be completed no later than July 31 2009; and

Within 30 days of Board approval of the set of amendments, the GNSO Council 
will form a Drafting Team to discuss further amendments to the RAA and to 
identify those on which further action may be desirable. The Drafting Team 
should endeavor to provide its advice to the Council and ICANN staff no later 
than July 31, 2009.

Motion passed unanimously by roll call vote.
27 Votes in favour

Chuck Gomes, Jordi Iparraguirre, Edmon Chung (Registry constituency) Tim Ruiz, 
Stéphane van Gelder, Adrian Kinderis (Registrars) 2 votes each; Greg Ruth, Tony 
Harris, Tony Holmes (ISP); Mike Rodenbaugh, Philip Sheppard, Zahid Jamil 
(CBUC); Olga Cavalli, Avri Doria, Terry Davis -remote participation (NCA); Mary 
Wong, Carlos Souza, Bill Drake (NCUC) Kristina Rosette, Cyril Chua - remote 
(IPC) one vote each.

Absentee ballot: Ute Decker (IPC) one vote in favour.
http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg06402.html


Glen de Saint Géry
GNSO Secretariat
gnso.secretariat@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://gnso.icann.org