[dow1-2tf] Whois joint task force 1 & 2 draft notes:Sept. 14 2004

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

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

Please find the very rough draft notes of the Whois joint task force 1 and 2
held on September 14, 2004.

Please let me know what you would like changed.

Thank you very much.

Glen de Saint Géry
GNSO Secretariat

WHOIS Task Forces 1 and 2 Teleconference 14 September, 2004 - Minutes

ATTENDEES:
GNSO Constituency representatives:
gTLD Registries constituency: - Jeff Neuman - Co-Chair
Registrars constituency - Jordyn Buchanan - Co-Chair
gTLD Registries constituency - David Maher
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
Intellectual Property Interests Constituency - Jeremy Banks
Intellectual Property Interests Constituency - Niklas Lagergren

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

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

Absent:
Commercial and Business Users constituency - David Fares
Amadeu Abril l Abril
Non Commercial Users Constituency - Milton Mueller - absent, apologies
Non Commercial Users Constituency - Marc Schneiders - absent, apologies

MP3 recording

Agenda
Item 1: Discuss decision tree that Barbara sent out this week
Item 2: Ongoing work plan
Item 3: Explore the possibility of dividing the TF into 3-4 subgroups
focusing on certain areas:
Conspicuous Notice Sub Group
Local laws/Regulations Sub Group
Tiered Access Sub group
- Feasibility in general Assuming feasible, what data is included in the
anonymous public access vs. the tiered access
Item 4: Discuss possible future issues
Item 5: Timing: dates and events

Each constituency should indicate who are the two participants and
alternates to the joint 1 and 2 task force.

David Fares would continue as a Commercial and Business Users Constituency
representative until the conclusion of the task force.

Barbara Roseman gave an update on the GNSO Council call on September 9, 2004
and commented that Council had given no directive to the task force.

Item 3:

Subgroups were discussed. It was argued that the role of subgroups would be
to split out the work, contribute items and then the subgroups would report
to the full group in multiple groups which could lead to greater efficacy.
The task force was not in agreement and did not support the proposal.

Item 1

Barbara Roseman walked the task force through the diagram she had prepared
and sent to the task force mailing list.



Steve Metalitz: commented on:
"How do contractual requirements relate to national laws on privacy?" in the
chart under Task force 2 progress.
Task Force 2 did not ask the question but made a recommendation that a
procedure be adopted so that registrars who believed that they were
encountering a conflict with national law could have a path to resolve that
where ICANN could also be involved.
Barbara Roseman responded that the language came from the discussion in
Kuala Lumpur and would be happy if the task force would like it changed.
Steve Metalitz commented further that there was consensus/support in task
force 2 for a procedure which could potentially be delivered in a fairly
short order. Hopefully, a procedure for resolving the conflicts when they
arose, would be one of the objectives for further work.

Marilyn Cade commented on: "Log the request issue" and asked whether there
was agreement about notification of registrants process or was it meant to
be 2 separate questions:

a. will there be a white list and if so, what kind?
b. if there is a white list will there be registrant notification?

Barbara Roseman responded that they were 2 separate items in the sense that
they tracked differently for the work needed to be done. Presuming that if
there was some active information that it was other than public and
anonymous and that the issue of notifying registrants would have to be
explored when their data was accurate.
Marilyn Cade asked whether the staff was assuming that or was it being
assumed from what could be read from the contributions?
Barbara Roseman stated that it was staff 's assumption and it was assumed
from what was put forward in the recommendations.
Marilyn Cade pointed out that it was a recommendation and had not been
agreed to.
None of the items have achieved full consensus
The two questions could be worked out together or independently.
The chart was not meant to predetermine how issues should be dealt with but
was meant to break the issues down into workable chunks.

Jordyn Buchanan commented that the benefit of the chart was that it gave a
sense of the right question to ask at each stage of the process and given
the answer to that question what the next question would be that followed up
as a result. It should be looked upon as an outline for future work, rather
than determining the answers.

Steve Metalitz remarked that the same question appeared at 2 different
levels in slightly different wording
" Working group needs to recommend what information needs to be included
into tier 1
" what falls into each set of data"

Barbara confirmed that they were restatements of the same question.


Jeff Neuman referred to the 3 items discussed in last call mentioned in the
chart and suggested persuing them further:
1. conspicuous notice
2. how registrars would approach conflict with national laws
3. overall idea of tiered access

Maggie Mansourkia's proposal referred to the same topics as a starting
point.

Marilyn Cade suggested some parallel processing on tiered access by
assigning some work to outside people who would be able to inform the group
and have reports come back while the group worked on conspicuous notice and
the procedure for conflicts with governments privacy laws. Proposed tiered
access needed expert input as there could possibly be significant costs
involved in implementing the change across the registrars or registries
which they would have to bare.

Jeff Neuman commented that experts, who would likely be volunteers, would be
needed on all the issues and that the task force would need to identify
experts who could give advice.

Thomas Roessler suggested drafting a proposal and then examining whether it
was feasible or not.
Thomas Keller agreed that there should be a proposal before it there was
further evaluation.

Marilyn Cade commented that it would be difficult to commit a single
proposal to the BC. There needed to be an assessment of feasibility and
options before there could be a firm proposal, and suggested that it would
be acceptable to examine different options and then have experts advise on
the different options.
Marilyn Cade expressed concern about following a direction which could
result in a mandate to the registrars which they are unable to agree to on
and the task force being led in a direction that was not feasible.
Maggie Mansourkia added that information gathering and hearing from experts
would have to happen before determining a proposal which should include
feasibility and cost as part of the equation.

Jordyn Buchanan stressed the need for a strategy for going forward with the
3 issues, identifying questions to refer to experts and initial work that
should be done on tiered access before determining what questions were
appropriate to refer to experts.

Steve Metalitz supported by Tom Keller suggested starting with a specific
question from the chart - What work is required for identifying a requestor
? This may have cost, privacy and liability implications.
Tony Harris was of the opinion that identifying the requestor could be a
relatively simple procedure with a password, user name and subscription.
Thomas Roessler commented that identity was a vague term and suggested:
Step 1. look at the requirements constituencies have for tiered access so
that a defined set of requirements could be implemented
Step 2 What data elements should be collected.
Paul Stahura suggested adding more questions to diagram for the task force
to answer
Tony Harris suggested access to a list of ICANN accredited "accessors" who
would assist in checking the legitimacy of the investigation
Marilyn Cade reminded the group that people in developing countries should
be able to use the solutions

Future work plan

1. Set up three calls in the next few weeks on the following items:

a) Conspicuous notice to registrants on Whois Policies
b) What happens in the event that any ICANN Policies conflict with National
Law (i.e., what steps can be taken by the registrars and ICANN in order to
address these potential conflicts).
c) With respect to tiered access, the first issue to address is how to
identify who is a "requestor."

With each of these subjects, it is important not only to determine what
sub-issues are involved in addressing the questions, but also, what experts
can be invited to participate and provide the Task Force guidance on these
issues.
As an example, for issue #1, it may make sense (if the group agrees) to have
legal experts from different countries discuss similar "conspicuous"
requirements in contracts in their local jurisdictions.

The role of the experts is to provide the Task Force with advise on the
various questions to be used as the Task Force members see fit.

2. Keep the discussions going on these topics through the mailing lists as
well.

3. Additional calls may be set up on these topics as determined by the
group.

4. Assignments handed out to members of the Task Force on the above issues.

Jeff Neuman and Jordyn Buchanan thanked everyone for their presence and
participation.
The call ended at 12:15 EST, 18:15 CET

Next Call: 21 September 2004
see: GNSO calendar












<!--#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="14 September 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 14 September, 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">Registrars constituency 
  - 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 - 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>
  Intellectual Property Interests Constituency - Jeremy Banks<br>
  Intellectual Property Interests Constituency - Niklas Lagergren <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>
  At-Large Advisory Committee (ALAC) liaisons - Wendy Seltzer<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">Commercial and Business Users 
constituency 
  - David Fares</font> <font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"> </font> <br>
  <font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Amadeu Abril l Abril</font> <br>
  <font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Non Commercial Users Constituency 
  - Milton Mueller </font> <font face="Arial, Helvetica, 
sans-serif"></font><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"> 
  - absent, apologies </font><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><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"></font><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"> 
  - absent, apologies </font><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"></font> 
  <font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><br>
  <br>
  <a href="http://gnso-audio.icann.org/WHOIS-20040914-tf12.mp3";>MP3 
recording</a><br>
  <br>
  <a 
href="http://gnso.icann.org/meetings/agenda-whoistf-14Sep04.htm";>Agenda</a> 
  <br>
  Item 1: Discuss decision tree that Barbara sent out this week <br>
  Item 2: Ongoing work plan <br>
  Item 3: Explore the possibility of dividing the TF into 3-4 subgroups 
focusing 
  on certain areas: <br>
  Conspicuous Notice Sub Group <br>
  Local laws/Regulations Sub Group <br>
  Tiered Access Sub group<br>
  - </font><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"> Feasibility in general 
Assuming 
  feasible, what data is included in the anonymous public access vs. the tiered 
  access <br>
  Item 4: Discuss possible future issues <br>
  Item 5: Timing: dates and events <br>
  <br>
  Each constituency should indicate who are the two participants and alternates 
  to the joint 1 and 2 task force.</font></p>
<p><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">David Fares would continue as a 
Commercial 
  and Business Users Constituency representative until the conclusion of the 
task 
  force. <br>
  <br>
  Barbara Roseman gave an update on the GNSO Council call on September 9, 2004 
  and commented that Council had given no directive to the task force.<br>
  <br>
  <b>Item 3:</b></font></p>
<p><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Subgroups were discussed. It was 
  argued that the role of subgroups would be to split out the work, contribute 
  items and then the subgroups would report to the full group in multiple 
groups 
  which could lead to greater efficacy.<br>
  The task force was not in agreement and did not support the proposal.<br>
  <br>
  <b>Item 1</b></font></p>
<p><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><b>Barbara Roseman</b> walked the 
  task force through the <a 
href="http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/dow1-2tf/jpg00000.jpg";>diagram</a>
 
  she had prepared and sent to the <a 
href="http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/dow1-2tf/msg00003.html";>task 
  force mailing list</a>.<br>
  <br>
  </font></p>
<p><b><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Steve Metalitz:</font></b><font 
face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"> 
  commented on:<br>
  </font><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">&quot;How do contractual 
requirements 
  relate to national laws on privacy?&quot; in the chart under Task force 2 
progress. 
  <br>
  Task Force 2 did not ask the question but made a recommendation that a 
procedure 
  be adopted so that registrars who believed that they were encountering a 
conflict 
  with national law could have a path to resolve that where ICANN could also be 
  involved.<br>
  <b>Barbara Roseman</b> responded that the language came from the discussion 
  in Kuala Lumpur and would be happy if the task force would like it changed. 
  <br>
  Steve Metalitz commented further that there was consensus/support in task 
force 
  2 for a procedure which could potentially be delivered in a fairly short 
order. 
  Hopefully, a procedure for resolving the conflicts when they arose, would be 
  one of the objectives for further work. </font><font face="Arial, Helvetica, 
sans-serif"> 
  </font></p>
<p><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><b>Marilyn Cade</b> commented on: 
  &quot;Log the request issue&quot; and asked whether there was agreement about 
  notification of registrants process or was it meant to be 2 separate 
questions:</font></p>
<p><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">a. will there be a white list and 
  if so, what kind?<br>
  </font><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">b. if there is a white list 
  will there be registrant notification?</font></p>
<p><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><b>Barbara Roseman</b> responded 
  that they were 2 separate items in the sense that they tracked differently 
for 
  the work needed to be done. Presuming that if there was some active 
information 
  that it was other than public and anonymous and that the issue of notifying 
  registrants would have to be explored when their data was accurate.<br>
  Marilyn Cade asked whether the staff was assuming that or was it being 
assumed 
  from what could be read from the contributions?<br>
  </font><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><b>Barbara Roseman</b> 
stated 
  that it was staff 's assumption and it was assumed from what was put forward 
  in the recommendations.<br>
  </font><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><b>Marilyn Cade</b> pointed 
  out that it was a recommendation and had not been agreed to.<br>
  </font><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">None of the items have 
achieved 
  full consensus<br>
  </font><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">The two questions could be 
  worked out together or independently.<br>
  The </font><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">chart was not meant to 
  predetermine how issues should be dealt with but was meant to break the 
issues 
  down into workable chunks.</font></p>
<p><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><b>Jordyn Buchanan</b> commented 
  that the benefit of the chart was that it gave a sense of the right question 
  to ask at each stage of the process and given the answer to that question 
what 
  the next question would be that followed up as a result. It should be looked 
  upon as an outline for future work, rather than determining the answers.<br>
  <b><br>
  Steve Metalitz</b> remarked that the same question appeared at 2 different 
levels 
  in slightly different wording<br>
  &quot; Working group needs to recommend what information needs to be included 
  into tier 1<br>
  &quot; </font><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">what falls into each 
  set of data&quot;</font></p>
<p><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><b>Barbara</b> confirmed that they 
  were restatements of the same question.<br>
  </font></p>
<p><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><b>Jeff Neuman</b> referred to the 
  3 items discussed in last call mentioned in the chart and suggested persuing 
  them further: <br>
  1. conspicuous notice<br>
  2. how registrars would approach conflict with national laws<br>
  3. overall idea of tiered access</font></p>
<p><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><b>Maggie Mansourkia</b>'s <a 
href="http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/dow1-2tf/msg00004.html";>proposal</a>
 
  referred to the same topics as a starting point.</font></p>
<p><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><b>Marilyn Cade</b> suggested some 
  parallel processing on tiered access by assigning some work to outside people 
  who would be able to inform the group and have reports come back while the 
group 
  worked on conspicuous notice and the procedure for conflicts with governments 
  privacy laws. Proposed tiered access needed expert input as there could 
possibly 
  be significant costs involved in implementing the change across the 
registrars 
  or registries which they would have to bare.</font></p>
<p><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><b>Jeff Neuman</b> commented that 
  experts, who would likely be volunteers, would be needed on all the issues 
and 
  that the task force would need to identify experts who could give advice. 
</font></p>
<p><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><b>Thomas Roessler</b> suggested 
  drafting a proposal and then examining whether it was feasible or not.<br>
  <b>Thomas Keller</b> agreed that there should be a proposal before it there 
  was further evaluation. </font></p>
<p><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><b>Marilyn Cade</b> commented that 
  it would be difficult to commit a single proposal to the BC. There needed to 
  be an assessment of feasibility and options before there could be a firm 
proposal, 
  and suggested that it would be acceptable to examine different options and 
then 
  have experts advise on the different options.<br>
  <b>Marilyn Cade</b> expressed concern about following a direction which could 
  result in a mandate to the registrars which they are unable to agree to on 
and 
  the task force being led in a direction that was not feasible. <br>
  <b>Maggie Mansourkia </b>added that information gathering and hearing from 
experts 
  would have to happen before determining a proposal which should include 
feasibility 
  and cost as part of the equation.</font></p>
<p><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><b>Jordyn Buchanan</b> stressed 
the 
  need for a strategy for going forward with the 3 issues, identifying 
questions 
  to refer to experts and initial work that should be done on tiered access 
before 
  determining what questions were appropriate to refer to experts.</font></p>
<p><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><b>Steve Metalitz</b> supported by 
  <b>Tom Kelle</b>r suggested starting with a specific question from the chart 
  - What work is required for identifying a requestor ? This may have cost, 
privacy 
  and liability implications.<br>
  <b>Tony Harris</b> was of the opinion that identifying the requestor could be 
  a relatively simple procedure with a password, user name and subscription.<br>
  <b>Thomas Roessler</b> commented that identity was a vague term and 
suggested: 
  <br>
  Step 1. look at the requirements constituencies have for tiered access so 
that 
  a defined set of requirements could be implemented<br>
  Step 2 What data elements should be collected.<br>
  <b>Paul Stahura</b> suggested adding more questions to diagram for the task 
  force to answer<br>
  </font><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><b>Tony Harris</b> suggested 
  access to a list of ICANN accredited &quot;accessors&quot; who would assist 
  in checking the legitimacy of the investigation<br>
  </font><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><b>Marilyn Cade</b> reminded 
  the group that people in developing countries should be able to use the 
solutions</font></p>
<p><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><b>Future work plan </b><br>
  <br>
  1. </font><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Set up three calls in the 
  next few weeks on the following items: <br>
  <br>
  a) Conspicuous notice to registrants on Whois Policies <br>
  b) What happens in the event that any ICANN Policies conflict with National 
  Law (i.e., what steps can be taken by the registrars and ICANN in order to 
address 
  these potential conflicts). <br>
  c) With respect to tiered access, the first issue to address is how to 
identify 
  who is a "requestor."<br>
  <br>
  With each of these subjects, it is important not only to determine what 
sub-issues 
  are involved in addressing the questions, but also, what experts can be 
invited 
  to participate and provide the Task Force guidance on these issues. <br>
  As an example, for issue #1, it may make sense (if the group agrees) to have 
  legal experts from different countries discuss similar "conspicuous" 
requirements 
  in contracts in their local jurisdictions. <br>
  <br>
  The role of the experts is to provide the Task Force with advise on the 
various 
  questions to be used as the Task Force members see fit. </font><font 
face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><br>
  <br>
  2. Keep the discussions going on these topics through the mailing lists as 
well. 
  <br>
  <br>
  3. Additional calls may be set up on these topics as determined by the group. 
  <br>
  <br>
  4. Assignments handed out to members of the Task Force on the above 
issues.</font></p>
<p><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><b>Jeff Neuman and Jordyn Buchanan 
  thanked everyone for their presence and participation. <br>
  The call ended at 12:15 EST, 18:15 CET<br>
  </b><b><br>
  </b><b>Next Call:</b> <b>21 September 2004<br>
  see: </b></font><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><a 
href="http://gnso.icann.org/calendar/";>GNSO 
  calendar</a><b><br>
  <br>
  </b></font></p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>