[dow1-2tf] Whois task force 1 and 2 Teleconference Draft minutes Aug. 3 2004

["GNSO SECRETARIAT" <gnso.secretariat@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

[To: dow1-2tf[at]gnso.icann.org]

Please find the draft minutes of the Whois teleconference on August 3 2004
attached in html and plain text version.
Please let me know what changes you would like made.

Thank you.

Glen de Saint Géry
GNSO Secretariat
************************************
WHOIS Task Forces 1 and 2 Teleconference August 03, 2004 - Minutes

ATTENDEES:

GNSO Constituency representatives:
gTLD Registries constituency: - Jeff Neuman - Co-Chair
Jordyn Buchanan - Co-Chair
gTLD Registries constituency - David Maher
Commercial and Business Users constituency - David Fares
Commercial and Business Users constituency - Marilyn Cade
Internet Service and Connectivity Providers constituency: - Antonio Harris
Internet Service and Connectivity Providers constituency - Maggie Mansourkia
Registrars constituency - Paul Stahura
Registrars constituency - Tom Keller
Intellectual Property Interests Constituency - Steve metalitz
Non Commercial Users Constituency - Milton Mueller

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

ICANN Staff Manager: Barbara Roseman
GNSO Secretariat: Glen de Saint Géry

Absent:
Amadeu Abril l Abril
Intellectual Property Interests Constituency - Jeremy Banks
Intellectual Property Interests Constituency - Niklas Lagergren
Non Commercial Users Constituency - Marc Schneiders

MP3 Recording

Agenda

(1) Review Activities in Kuala Lumpur
(2) Selection of chair for TF 1 and TF2
(3) Select priority recommendations for further work - e.g. registrant
consent, tiered access
(4) Break into sub-groups to develop reference implementations
* e.g. registrant consent * Tiered access (break into two subgroups
- what data is in each tier
- how to accredit/identify users of tier 2
(5) AOB


(1) Review Activities in Kuala Lumpur

Jeff Neuman suggested keeping in mind the GNSO Council advice, given in
Kuala Lumpur, taking a step by step process aimed at getting out
improvements regularly.
Prioritize the recommendations that :
(1) have the best consensus,
(2) provide a tangible improvement for the Internet community, and
(3) are likely to be implementable within the short term (months rather than
years)"

- Whois task forces one and two combine and work together, in particular
looking at the tiered access option and developing further up-front advice
to registrants about their obligations and the fact that none of the data
becomes public
- the work output of the two groups, combined Whois task forces one and two
and Whois task force three, be combined before next going out to public
comment.
Jeff Neuman referred to Steve Metalitz's email on prioritization
The merged task force could make a useful contribution by finding out more
about the costs (in terms of time, money, and other resources) and the
reliability of the available methods for achieving this.


Marilyn Cade reported that there had been an exchange between the GAC and
the GNSO, on how to work together, the process needed and how best to
exchange information working within the constraints of the GAC. The GAC
working group is headed by Suzanne Sene with 2 members per region.
Governments for the most part, cannot provide comments during the public
comment period. Individual governments are restricted by what information
they can give, thus the more informal exchanges through the GAC working
group would be very useful. The GAC could provide advice on a final
document.
A conference call with the GAC working group was proposed for September.

Jeff Neuman commented that the aim was to reach consensus as a task force.

(2) Selection of chair for TF 1 and TF2

The preference was for co-chairs. Jeff Neuman and Jordyn Buchanan accepted
to co-chair the combined task force 1 and 2.


(3) Select priority recommendations for further work - e.g. registrant
consent, tiered access

Work through Bruce Tonkin's decision tree as a guideline

Task force 1 and 2 review recommendations in 2 reports and come up ways with
ways to move forward. Implementation analysis, reference implementation,
implementatbility,standardization, best practices, funding models for
additional costs.
Tiered access consisted basically of two tiers
- tier one basic data accessible to anyone (tf 1 touched on this in a
footnote: sensitive data and non sensitive data)
- tier two - complete set of data that may or may not need authentication
for access

After identifying what data is in each tier, the requestor should identify
himself to the whois provider.
Tf 1 discussed 2 models.
Both models could operate at the same time:
(1) central white list approach,
(2) distributive model where each registrar could have his own model
Work needs to be done recommendation of tf1 can only be done at a tier two
level

If tiered access were decided on, there were two options to consider:
centralized or distributed, then to log or not, what to do with the
information, notify registrant immediately, sometime after. Whatever
policies were decided on measurement levels should be worked out. How would
it be enforced and how would compliance be measured.

Steve Metalitz said the concern lay in what the feasibility would be of
changing the system to one in which access to that tier would no longer be
on an anonymous basis but that identity had to be authenticated as in the
cases where some of the data was needed by law enforcement etc.
Milton Mueller emphasized that first a decision had to be made if tiered
access was wanted or not and then decide about the costs and the
implementation.

Marilyn Cade emphasized the need to better understand cost implications to
move to a significant system change. Feasibility examination is important
before issues go to Council.
Paul Stahura asked how the information would get to the registrants.

Where could consensus be reached - Look at the low hanging fruit:

(1) Conspicuous notification to, and obtaining consent from, registrants re
availability of Whois data. (See TF 2, recommendation 1.)
Questions to be explored:
- what does it mean to give conspicuous notice, even some disagreement in
the legal community.
- how does one obtain consent from the registrants, default consent or more
- when should the registrant be informed


Marilyn Cade added that if information should be given to the registrant,
possibility of a standardized notice form should be examined.

Milton Mueller expected to move forward rapidly so that the issue did not
cloud other issues and was willing to compromise as long as other
constituencies were also willing to compromise on the real issues of Whois
reform.

Jeff Neuman recommends sub group to look at above issues what legal experts
should be brought in to explain what was meant by conspicuous notice,
national laws.

(2) Establishing a process for handling (and, if possible, resolving) cases
of conflict between applicable national privacy laws and ICANN contractual
obligations with regard to Whois. (See TF 2, recommendation 3, and TF 1,
recommendation 3.)
Steve Metalitz commented that within tf 2 there was some agreement about
establishing a process for a thick registry when it believed that local
privacy laws legally prevented it from complying with contractual
obligations. The emphasis being on process and not delving into the laws.

Milton Mueller disagreed that it was low hanging fruit, very complicated
problem, could not be easily handled in the current framework

Marilyn Cade commented that system change took a long time and suggested
taking small steps towards a system wide change.
Jordyn Buchanan commented that if the situation did arise where a registrar
was notified of local law regulations, there should be a way of working
through this with ICANN.

Marilyn Cade suggested requesting a status report in a briefing from ICANN
staff, to both the combined task force and task force 3, on what had been
implemented from the previous Whois task force recommendations
(http://www.icann.org/minutes/prelim-report-27mar03.htm.) and the timeframes
for the unimplemented recommendations.

Steve Metalitz proposed conducting further research on proxy services as
proposed by task force 2 in 3 .2
"further research should be conducted on the use of ?proxy registration
services? within the framework of Sec. 3.7.7.3 of the RAA, including but not
limited to the following issues:
- the rate of uptake of such services,
- their cost, and consumer response to them;
- what steps are taken to ensure the proxy service provider collects (or has
immediate access to) accurate, complete and current contact information on
all registrants taking advantage of such services?
- the circumstances under which contact information of the actual registrant
is disclosed pursuant to the RAA provision (i.e., the ?evidence of
actionable harm? scenario)
- and the consequences of such disclosures; how registrants are notified
when the withheld data is released to third parties;
- the impact of such services on registrar portability; scalability of such
services;
- concerns raised by customers regarding disclosure of data;
- complaints about registrar proxy or 3rd party proxy services, including
complaints to or by law enforcement officials;
- contractual terms between registrants and proxy services.
- effect of proxy situations on the stability of domain name registrations
? what happens when a proxy goes out of business, and the ?actual?
registrant is unknown to the registrar?
- Usefulness of proxy services to enable anonymous free speech.

The results of such research could be used to: develop a set of best
practices for the operation of such services; and/or initiate a policy
development or other appropriate process toward changing the terms of Sec.
3.7.7.3, if warranted.
Further work should also be conducted on the feasibility of requiring
registrars to provide e-mail forwarding services to registrants, and the
impact of such a requirement upon registrant privacy and contactability. As
a first step, the research agenda outlined above could be expanded to study
the operation of such services to the extent they exist today."

There was some disagreement in the group whether further research into proxy
services would be of use and what the task force could achieve by studying
the question further. Steve Metalitz commented that it was in the current
system but there was no knowledge of how it was working.

(3) Investigating the implementability of methods for
identifying/authenticating Whois requesters.
It could be considered as a good place to start on the further exploration
of tiered access.
Two sub-issues were identified:
- making available some data while other data was not available
- what would it take to identify people requesting data and authentifying
them


(4) Full data versus basic data
Deciding what data should be displayed

Economic feasibility at a high level based on a standard should be examined.

Requirements/expectations for a tiered access model and then the feasibility
could be discussed
Discussions on feasibility are useful but feasibility should not determine
the complete policy at the current stage.
The Business and Intellectual Property constituencies were among those which
felt that further work was needed on feasibility.

Jeff Neuman summed up:
Further action:

(1 )Graphic presentation of the decision tree on tiered access: Jeff Neuman,
Jordyn Buchanan, Barbara Roseman
(2) People to serve on the subgroups: to be decided on the mailing list
(3) Conspicuous notification to, and obtaining consent from, registrants re
availability of Whois data.
(4) Establishing a process for handling (and, if possible, resolving) cases
of conflict between applicable national privacy laws and ICANN contractual
obligations with regard to Whois.
(5) Investigating the implementability of methods for
identifying/authenticating Whois requesters.
(6) (4) Full data versus basic data
(7) Requesting a status report from ICANN on what had or had not been
implemented from the previous Whois task force recommendations
(http://www.icann.org/minutes/prelim-report-27mar03.htm.) and the timeframes
for the unimplemented recommendations.
(8) Expert briefings: Check with task force 3 on overlap

Next Call: to be decided
Jeff Neuman and Jordyn Buchanan thanked everyone for their presence and
participation and ended the call at 11:15 EST, 17:15 CET














<!--#set var="bartitle" value="WHOIS Task Forces 1 and 2 minutes"-->
<!--#set var="pagetitle" value="WHOIS Task Force 1 and 2 minutes"-->
<!--#set var="pagedate" value="03 August 2004" value=""-->
<!--#set var="bgcell" value="#ffffff"-->
<!--#include virtual="/header.shtml"-->
<!--#exec cmd="/usr/bin/perl /etc/gnso/menu.pl 'WHOIS Task Forces 1 and 2 
minutes'"-->
<p align="center"><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><b>WHOIS Task 
Forces 
  1 and 2 Teleconference August 03, 2004 - Minutes</b></font></p>
<p><b><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">ATTENDEES:<br>
  </font></b></p>
<p><b><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">GNSO Constituency 
representatives:<br>
  </font></b><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">gTLD Registries 
constituency: 
  - Jeff</font><b><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"> </font></b><font 
face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Neuman</font><b><font face="Arial, 
Helvetica, sans-serif"> 
  - </font></b><font face="Arial, Helvetica, 
sans-serif">Co-Chair</font><b><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"> 
  </font></b><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"> </font><b><font 
face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><br>
  </font></b><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Jordyn Buchanan - 
Co-Chair</font><b><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"> 
  </font></b><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"> </font><b><font 
face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><br>
  </font></b><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">gTLD Registries 
constituency 
  - David Maher </font><b><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><br>
  </font></b><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Commercial and Business 
  Users constituency - David Fares</font> <font face="Arial, Helvetica, 
sans-serif"> 
  <br>
  Commercial and Business Users constituency - Marilyn Cade</font><b><font 
face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><br>
  </font></b><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Internet Service and 
Connectivity 
  Providers constituency: - Antonio Harris</font> <font face="Arial, Helvetica, 
sans-serif"><br>
  Internet Service and Connectivity Providers constituency - Maggie 
Mansourkia<br>
  Registrars constituency - Paul Stahura<br>
  Registrars constituency - Tom Keller</font><font face="Arial, Helvetica, 
sans-serif"> 
  <br>
  </font><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Intellectual Property 
Interests 
  Constituency - Steve metalitz<br>
  Non Commercial Users Constituency - Milton Mueller </font> <font face="Arial, 
Helvetica, sans-serif"></font><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"> 
  <br>
  </font><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><br>
  </font><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><b>Liaisons:</b><br>
  At-Large Advisory Committee (ALAC) liaisons - Thomas Roessler<br>
  <br>
  <b>ICANN Staff Manager</b>: Barbara Roseman</font> <font face="Arial, 
Helvetica, sans-serif"><br>
  <b>GNSO Secretariat:</b> Glen de Saint G&eacute;ry <br>
  <br>
  <b>Absent:</b></font><br>
  <font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Amadeu Abril l Abril</font> <br>
  <font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Intellectual Property Interests 
Constituency 
  - Jeremy Banks<br>
  Intellectual Property Interests Constituency - Niklas Lagergren<br>
  </font><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"></font> <font face="Arial, 
Helvetica, sans-serif"> 
  </font><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Non Commercial Users 
Constituency 
  - Marc Schneiders</font> <font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><br>
  <br>
  <a href="http://gnso-audio.icann.org/WHOIS-20040703-tf12.mp3";>MP3 
Recording</a><br>
  <br>
  <a href="http://gnso.icann.org/meetings/agenda-gnso-03aug04.htm";>Agenda</a> 
  </font></p>
<p><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">(1) Review Activities in Kuala 
Lumpur 
  <br>
  (2) Selection of chair for TF 1 and TF2 <br>
  (3) Select priority recommendations for further work - e.g. registrant 
consent, 
  tiered access <br>
  (4) Break into sub-groups to develop reference implementations<br>
  * e.g. registrant consent * Tiered access (break into two subgroups <br>
  - what data is in each tier<br>
  - how to accredit/identify users of tier 2 <br>
  (5) AOB <br>
  </font></p>
<p><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">(1) Review Activities in Kuala 
Lumpur 
  </font></p>
<p><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><b>Jeff Neuman</b> suggested 
keeping 
  in mind the GNSO Council advice, given in Kuala Lumpur, taking a step by step 
  process aimed at getting out improvements regularly.<br>
  Prioritize the recommendations that :<br>
  (1) have the best consensus, <br>
  (2) provide a tangible improvement for the Internet community, and <br>
  (3) are likely to be implementable within the short term (months rather than 
  years)" <br>
  <br>
  - Whois task forces one and two combine and work together, in particular 
looking 
  at the tiered access option and developing further up-front advice to 
registrants 
  about their obligations and the fact that none of the data becomes public<br>
  - the work output of the two groups, combined Whois task forces one and two 
  and Whois task force three, be combined before next going out to public 
comment.<br>
  <b>Jeff Neuman</b> referred to <a 
href="http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/dow2tf/msg00393.html";>Steve 
  Metalitz's email</a> on prioritization <br>
  The merged task force could make a useful contribution by finding out more 
about 
  the costs (in terms of time, money, and other resources) and the reliability 
  of the available methods for achieving this.<br>
  </font></p>
<p><b><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Marilyn Cade</font></b><font 
face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"> 
  reported that there had been an exchange between the GAC and the GNSO, on how 
  to work together, the process needed and how best to exchange information 
working 
  within the constraints of the GAC. The GAC working group is headed by Suzanne 
  Sene with 2 members per region. Governments for the most part, cannot provide 
  comments during the public comment period. Individual governments are 
restricted 
  by what information they can give, thus the more informal exchanges through 
  the GAC working group would be very useful. The GAC could provide advice on 
  a final document.<br>
  A conference call with the GAC working group was proposed for September.<br>
  <br>
  <b>Jeff Neuman</b> commented that the aim was to reach consensus as a task 
force.</font></p>
<p><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><b>(2) Selection of chair for TF 
  1 and TF2 </b></font></p>
<p><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">The preference was for co-chairs. 
  Jeff Neuman and Jordyn Buchanan accepted to co-chair the combined task force 
  1 and 2.<br>
  </font></p>
<p><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><b>(3) Select priority 
recommendations 
  for further work - e.g. registrant consent, tiered access</b></font></p>
<p><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Work through Bruce Tonkin's 
decision 
  tree as a guideline</font></p>
<p><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Task force 1 and 2 review 
recommendations 
  in 2 reports and come up ways with ways to move forward. Implementation 
analysis, 
  reference implementation, implementatbility,standardization, best practices, 
  funding models for additional costs.<br>
  Tiered access consisted basically of two tiers<br>
  - tier one basic data accessible to anyone (tf 1 touched on this in a 
footnote: 
  sensitive data and non sensitive data)<br>
  - tier two - </font><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">complete set of 
  data that may or may not need authentication for access</font></p>
<p><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">After identifying what data is in 
  each tier, the requestor should identify himself to the whois provider. <br>
  Tf 1 discussed 2 models. <br>
  Both models could operate at the same time: <br>
  (1) central white list approach, <br>
  (2) distributive model where each registrar could have his own 
model</font><br>
  <font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Work needs to be done 
recommendation 
  of tf1 can only be done at a tier two level</font></p>
<p><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">If tiered access were decided on, 
  there were two options to consider: centralized or distributed, then to log 
  or not, what to do with the information, notify registrant immediately, 
sometime 
  after. Whatever policies were decided on measurement levels should be worked 
  out. How would it be enforced and how would compliance be measured.</font></p>
<p><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><b>Steve Metalitz</b> said the 
concern 
  lay in what the feasibility would be of changing the system to one in which 
  access to that tier would no longer be on an anonymous basis but that 
identity 
  had to be authenticated as in the cases where some of the data was needed by 
  law enforcement etc.<br>
  Milton Mueller emphasized that first a decision had to be made if tiered 
access 
  was wanted or not and then decide about the costs and the 
implementation.</font></p>
<p><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><b>Marilyn Cade</b> emphasized the 
  need to better understand cost implications to move to a significant system 
  change. Feasibility examination is important before issues go to Council.<br>
  <b>Paul Stahura</b> asked how the information would get to the registrants. 
  </font></p>
<p><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><b>Where could consensus be 
reached 
  - Look at the low hanging fruit:</b></font></p>
<p><b><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">(1) Conspicuous notification 
to, 
  and obtaining consent from, registrants re availability of Whois 
data</font></b><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">. 
  (See TF 2, recommendation 1.) <br>
  Questions to be explored:<br>
  </font><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">- what does it mean to give 
  conspicuous notice, even some disagreement in the legal community.<br>
  - how does one obtain consent from the registrants, default consent or 
more<br>
  - when should the registrant be informed<br>
  </font></p>
<p><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><b>Marilyn Cade</b> added that if 
  information should be given to the registrant, possibility of a standardized 
  notice form should be examined.</font></p>
<p><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><b>Milton Mueller</b> expected to 
  move forward rapidly so that the issue did not cloud other issues and was 
willing 
  to compromise as long as other constituencies were also willing to compromise 
  on the real issues of Whois reform.</font></p>
<p><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><b>Jeff Neuman</b> recommends sub 
  group to look at above issues what legal experts should be brought in to 
explain 
  what was meant by conspicuous notice, national laws.</font></p>
<p><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><b>(2) Establishing a process for 
  handling (and, if possible, resolving) cases of conflict between applicable 
  national privacy laws and ICANN contractual obligations with regard to Whois. 
  </b>(See TF 2, recommendation 3, and TF 1, recommendation 3.) <br>
  Steve Metalitz commented that within tf 2 there was some agreement about 
establishing 
  a process for a thick registry when it believed that local privacy laws 
legally 
  prevented it from complying with contractual obligations. The emphasis being 
  on process and not delving into the laws.</font></p>
<p><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><b>Milton Mueller </b>disagreed 
that 
  it was low hanging fruit, very complicated problem, could not be easily 
handled 
  in the current framework</font></p>
<p><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><b>Marilyn Cade</b> commented that 
  system change took a long time and suggested taking small steps towards a 
system 
  wide change.<br>
  J<b>ordyn Buchanan</b> commented that if the situation did arise where a 
registrar 
  was notified of local law regulations, there should be a way of working 
through 
  this with ICANN.<br>
  <br>
  <b>Marilyn Cade</b> suggested requesting a status report in a briefing from 
  ICANN staff, to both the combined task force and task force 3, on what had 
been 
  implemented from the <a 
href="http://www.icann.org/minutes/prelim-report-27mar03.htm";>previous 
  Whois task force recommendations (</a></font><font face="Arial, Helvetica, 
sans-serif">http://www.icann.org/minutes/prelim-report-27mar03.htm.) 
  and the timeframes for the unimplemented recommendations.</font></p>
<p><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><b>Steve Metalitz </b>proposed 
conducting 
  further research on proxy services as proposed by task force 2 in 3 .2<br>
  </font><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"> &quot;further research 
should 
  be conducted on the use of ?proxy registration services? within the framework 
  of Sec. 3.7.7.3 of the RAA, including but not limited to the following 
issues:<br>
  - the rate of uptake of such services, <br>
  - their cost, and consumer response to them; <br>
  - what steps are taken to ensure the proxy service provider collects (or has 
  immediate access to) accurate, complete and current contact information on 
all 
  registrants taking advantage of such services? <br>
  - the circumstances under which contact information of the actual registrant 
  is disclosed pursuant to the RAA provision (i.e., the ?evidence of actionable 
  harm? scenario) <br>
  - and the consequences of such disclosures; how registrants are notified when 
  the withheld data is released to third parties; <br>
  - the impact of such services on registrar portability; scalability of such 
  services; <br>
  - concerns raised by customers regarding disclosure of data; <br>
  - complaints about registrar proxy or 3rd party proxy services, including 
complaints 
  to or by law enforcement officials;<br>
  - </font><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">contractual terms between 
  registrants and proxy services.<br>
  - </font><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">effect of proxy situations 
  on the stability of domain name registrations <br>
  ? what happens when a proxy goes out of business, and the ?actual? registrant 
  is unknown to the registrar? <br>
  - Usefulness of proxy services to enable anonymous free speech. <br>
  <br>
  The results of such research could be used to: develop a set of best 
practices 
  for the operation of such services; and/or initiate a policy development or 
  other appropriate process toward changing the terms of Sec. 3.7.7.3, if 
warranted. 
  <br>
  Further work should also be conducted on the feasibility of requiring 
registrars 
  to provide e-mail forwarding services to registrants, and the impact of such 
  a requirement upon registrant privacy and contactability. As a first step, 
the 
  research agenda outlined above could be expanded to study the operation of 
such 
  services to the extent they exist today.&quot; </font></p>
<p><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">There was some disagreement in the 
  group whether further research into proxy services would be of use and what 
  the task force could achieve by studying the question further. <b>Steve 
Metalitz</b> 
  commented that it was in the current system but there was no knowledge of how 
  it was working.</font></p>
<p><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><b>(3) Investigating the 
implementability 
  of methods for identifying/authenticating Whois requesters. </b><br>
  It could be considered as a good place to start on the further exploration of 
  tiered access.<br>
  Two sub-issues were identified:<br>
  </font><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">- making available some data 
  while other data was not available<br>
  </font><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">- what would it take to 
identify 
  people requesting data and authentifying them<br>
  </font></p>
<p><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><b>(4) Full data versus basic 
data</b><br>
  Deciding what data should be displayed</font></p>
<p><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"> Economic feasibility at a high 
level 
  based on a standard should be examined.<br>
  <br>
  Requirements/expectations for a tiered access model and then the feasibility 
  could be discussed<br>
  </font><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Discussions on feasibility 
  are useful but feasibility should not determine the complete policy at the 
current 
  stage.<br>
  The Business and Intellectual Property constituencies were among those which 
  felt that further work was needed on feasibility.<br>
  <b><br>
  Jeff Neuman summed up:<br>
  </b></font><b><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Further 
action:</font></b></p>
<font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">(1 )Graphic presentation of the 
decision 
tree on tiered access: Jeff Neuman, Jordyn Buchanan, Barbara Roseman<br>
(2) People to serve on the subgroups: to be decided on the mailing list<br>
(3) Conspicuous notification to, and obtaining consent from, registrants re 
availability 
of Whois data. <br>
(4) Establishing a process for handling (and, if possible, resolving) cases of 
conflict between applicable national privacy laws and ICANN contractual 
obligations 
with regard to Whois.<br>
(5) Investigating the implementability of methods for 
identifying/authenticating 
Whois requesters.<br>
(6) (4) Full data versus basic data<br>
(7) Requesting a status report from ICANN on what had or had not been 
implemented 
from the <a 
href="http://www.icann.org/minutes/prelim-report-27mar03.htm";>previous 
Whois task force recommendations 
(</a>http://www.icann.org/minutes/prelim-report-27mar03.htm.) 
and the timeframes for the unimplemented recommendations.<br>
(8) Expert briefings: Check with task force 3 on overlap <br>
<br>
<b>Next Call:</b> to be decided </font> 
<p><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><b>Jeff Neuman and Jordyn Buchanan 
  thanked everyone for their presence and participation and ended the call at 
  11:15 EST, 17:15 CET<br>
  </b><b><br>
  <br>
  <br>
  </b></font></p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>