<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
[dow1-2tf] Whois task force 1/2 notes 15 February 2005
- To: "12DOW" <dow1-2tf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: [dow1-2tf] Whois task force 1/2 notes 15 February 2005
- From: "GNSO SECRETARIAT" <gnso.secretariat@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 16 Feb 2005 22:40:22 +0100
- Importance: Normal
- Reply-to: <gnso.secretariat@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Sender: owner-dow1-2tf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[To: dow1-2tf[at]gnso.icann.org]
Please find attached the notes from the Whois task force 1/2 meeting held on
February 15, 2005.
Please let me know whether you would like anything changed.
Thank you very much!
Kind regards
Glen de Saint Géry
<!--#set var="bartitle" value="WHOIS Task Forces 1 and 2 teleconference"-->
<!--#set var="pagetitle" value="WHOIS Task Force 1 and 2 teleconference"-->
<!--#set var="pagedate" value="15 february 2005" value=""-->
<!--#set var="bgcell" value="#ffffff"-->
<!--#include virtual="/header.shtml"-->
<!--#exec cmd="/usr/bin/perl /etc/gnso/menu.pl 'WHOIS Task Force 1 and 2
teleconference'"-->
<h4 align="center"><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><b>WHOIS Task
Forces
1 & 2 <br>
<br>
15 February, 2005 - Minutes</b></font></h4>
<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">Registrars constituency
- Jordyn Buchanan - Co-Chair <br>
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><font
face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">
<br>
gTLD Registries constituency - David Maher <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">Commercial and Business
Users constituency - David Fares</font><b><font face="Arial, Helvetica,
sans-serif">
<br>
</font></b><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><font face="Arial,
Helvetica, sans-serif">Internet
Service and Connectivity Providers constituency - Antonio </font>Harris
</font><b><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><br>
</font></b><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Registrars constituency
- Tom Keller <br>
<font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Registrars constituency - Paul
Stahura
</font><br>
Intellectual Property Interests Constituency - Steve Metalitz <br>
Government Advisory Committee (GAC) liaison - Suzanne Sene</font></p>
<p><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><b>ICANN GNSO Policy Officer</b>
- Maria Farrell <br>
<b>ICANN Staff Manager</b>: Barbara Roseman</font> <font face="Arial,
Helvetica, sans-serif">
</font><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><br>
</font><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><b>GNSO Secretariat:</b>
Glen
de Saint Géry <br>
<br>
<b>Absent:</b></font><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"> </font><font
face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><br>
<font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Registrars constituency -</font>
Tim
Ruiz <br>
</font><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Nominating committee
representative
- Amadeu Abril l Abril</font><br>
<font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Intellectual Property Interests
Constituency
- Niklas Lagergren,</font> <font face="Arial, Helvetica,
sans-serif"></font><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><br>
</font><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Intellectual Property
Interests
Constituency - Jeremy Banks</font><br>
<font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Non Commercial Users Constituency
- Marc Schneiders</font><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"> </font>
<br>
<font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Non Commercial Users Constituency
- Milton Mueller - apologies</font> <font face="Arial, Helvetica,
sans-serif"></font><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">
<br>
Non Commercial Users Constituency - Kathy Kleiman</font><font face="Arial,
Helvetica, sans-serif"><br>
</font> <font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Internet Service and
Connectivity
Providers constituency - Maggie Mansourkia</font><font face="Arial,
Helvetica, sans-serif">
- apologies<br>
At-Large Advisory Committee (ALAC) liaisons - Thomas Roessler - apologies<br>
</font><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"></font> <font face="Arial,
Helvetica, sans-serif">
</font><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"> </font><font face="Arial,
Helvetica, sans-serif"></font>
<font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">At-Large Advisory Committee (ALAC)
liaisons - Wendy Seltzer</font> <br>
<font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><br>
<a href="http://gnso-audio.icann.org/WHOIS-20050215-tf12.mp3">MP3
Recording</a></font><br>
<br>
<font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Jeff Neuman stated that the purpose
of the call was to discuss the constituency statements: </font></p>
<p><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><a
href="http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/dow1-2tf/msg00231.html">Intellectual
Property Constituency (IPC)</a> Statement <br>
</font><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><a
href="http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/dow1-2tf/msg00230.html">Registrar
Constituency </a>statement</font> <br>
<font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><a
href="http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/dow1-2tf/msg00234.html">Non
commercial Users Constituency </a>statement<br>
<a
href="http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/dow1-2tf/msg00235.html">Commercial
and Business Users Constituency </a>statement</font> <br>
<br>
<font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">The gTLD Registry and Internet
Service
Providers and Connectivity Providers constituencies would submit statements
shortly. <br>
From the statements received, and input from the gTLD regeistry constituency
there appeared to be 2 diametrically opposed sides </font></p>
<p><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">The task force has reached the
stage
of the process where a report should be provided with statements attached
indicating
the views and impact on each constituency.<br>
<br>
Three constituencies supported the task force recommendations in general with
some wording changes: </font><br>
<font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">- Intellectual Property Interests
constituency (unanimous approval)<br>
- Non Commercial Users constituency<br>
- Commercial and Business users constituency (one comment not supportive,
emphasizing
the additional burden on the registrars)<br>
<br>
Two constituencies opposed the recommendations:<br>
Registrar constituency <br>
Registries constituency<br>
The registrars, though not unanimous felt that it added an unnecessary
burden,
concern was expressed that ever issue coming up would require a different set
of notices in registration process which might be impossible for the small
companies
who would have to pick up most of the costs. In addition it could have an
adverse
affect on the registrar client relationship. The registries unanimously
supported
the registrars and considered it over complicated a very simple process, the
rules in place were adequate and voluntary compliance should take care of any
issues.<br>
<br>
Jeff Neuman mentioned the weighted voting scheme at the GNSO Council level,
the providers, Registries and Registrars had a double vote and the 4 user
constituencies
equaled the voting of the latter. There were 3 other representatives form the
Nominating Committee who could break a tie.</font></p>
<p><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">If the Registrars and Registries
voted against the report it would not be forwarded to the Board as a
consensus
policy , but as a majority proposal. The ramifications were that if it was
not
a consensus policy, the Board could not impose it on the registrars and
registries
and it would not become an automatic amendment to the contract.<br>
<br>
<b>Jeff Neuman </b>proposed two options:</font></p>
<p><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">- open the process and examine
whether
there are any middle grounds; possible value in modifying the statements to
gain greater support<br>
- when all the statements have been received, the task force votes on the
report,
the objections are noted and the report is submitted to the GNSO council<br>
<br>
Common ground: no constituency opposed making the end user or registrant
aware
of what their information was going to be used for . It was in prescribing
how
their customers were made aware.</font></p>
<p><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><b>Steve Metalitz</b> referred to
the <a
href="http://gnso.icann.org/issues/whois-privacy/Whois-tf2-preliminary.html">Task
Force 2 recommendations</a> and felt that they could all be adopted.<br>
<b><br>
3.1 Notification and Consent </b><br>
ICANN should:<br>
<br>
a) incorporate compliance with the notification and consent requirement
(R.A.A.
Secs. 3.7.7.4, 3.7.7.5) as part of its overall plan to improve registrar
compliance
with the RAA. (See MOU Amendment II.C.14.d).<br>
<br>
b) issue an advisory reminding registrars of the importance of compliance
with
this contractual requirement, even registrars operating primarily in
countries
in which local law apparently does not require registrant consent to be
obtained.
<br>
<br>
c) encourage development of best practices that will improve the
effectiveness
of giving notice to, and obtaining consent from, domain name registrants with
regard to uses of registrant contact data, such as by requesting that GNSO
commence
a policy development process (or other procedure) with goal of developing
such
best practices. <br>
<b><br>
Jordyn Buchanan</b> responded that the registrar statement had adopted some
of the principles behind the task force recommendation but there was some
aversion
to adopting specific implementation mechanisms especially where they were
difficult
to implement or incompatible with existing registration processes.
Encouraging
the notion of best practices seemed compatible with the notion that the
registrars
put forward that they encouraged voluntary adoption of such measures.
Creating
some clarity about the way it might be done would be a policy that could be
supported.<br>
<br>
<b>Jordyn Buchanan</b> asked about the status of task force 2
recommendations:<br>
<br>
<a href="http://gnso.icann.org/meetings/minutes2-gnso-20jul04.htm">GNSO
Council
decision</a> on Whois task forces at the meeting in Kuala Lumpur in July
2004.<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>
- Whois task force three proceed to clearly identify its recommendations for
new policy and work on determining what are the implementation issues for
work
done by ICANN and work done by registrars <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>
<br>
<b>Jordyn Buchanan</b> suggested going back to the task force 2
recommendations,
presenting them to the Council to vote on rather than forwarding the
proposals
developed over the past few weeks.<br>
<br>
<b>Steve Metalitz </b>expressed concern about the length of time it would
take
to go back to the constituencies for approval if there were changes brought
about in the recommendations.<br>
<br>
<b>Jeff Neuman</b> responded that if the statement was consistent with what
the constituency had put forward it may not need to go back to the
constituency
and </font><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">referred to the <a
href="http://www.icann.org/general/archive-bylaws/bylaws-19apr04.htm#AnnexA">policy
development process</a><br>
<br>
Section 7. Task Forces</font></p>
<p><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">e. Task Force Report. <br>
The chair of the task force, working with the Staff Manager, shall compile
the
Constituency Statements, Public Comment Report, and other information or
reports,
as applicable, into a single document ("Preliminary Task Force Report") and
distribute the Preliminary Task Force Report to the full task force within
forty
(40) calendar days after initiation of the PDP. The task force shall have a
final task force meeting within five (5) days after the date of distribution
of the Preliminary Task Force Report to deliberate the issues and try and
reach
a Supermajority Vote. Within five (5) calendar days after the final task
force
meeting, the chair of the task force and the Staff Manager shall create the
final task force report (the "Task Force Report") and post it on the Comment
Site. Each Task Force Report must include: <br>
<br>
<b>Jordyn Buchanan</b> commented that the <a
href="http://www.icann.org/general/archive-bylaws/bylaws-19apr04.htm#AnnexA">bylaws</a>
contemplated a meeting of the task force before the report went to the GNSO
Council.<br>
<br>
</font><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><b>Jeff Neuman</b> suggested
that the<a
href="http://www.icann.org/general/archive-bylaws/bylaws-19apr04.htm#AnnexA">
policy development process</a> could be followed:<br>
</font><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">2. take a vote in the task
force on the statement and if there was no super majority a clear statement
of all positions espoused by task force members submitted within the
twenty-day
timeline for submission of constituency reports. Each statement should
clearly
indicate (i) the reasons underlying the position and (ii) the
constituency(ies)
that held the position; <br>
3. An analysis of how the issue would affect each constituency of the task
force,
including any financial impact on the constituency; <br>
4. An analysis of the period of time that would likely be necessary to
implement
the policy; and<br>
5. The advice of any outside advisors appointed to the task force by the
Council,
accompanied by a detailed statement of the advisors' (i) qualifications and
relevant experience; and (ii) potential conflicts of interest. <br>
<br>
The task force felt that there was common ground that everyone supported that
notice be provided to all registrants in advance of registration as to what
their data is going to be used for. <br>
Possible recommendation from the task force that an implementation committee
be set up by ICANN on how that could be enforced.<br>
<br>
The GNSO Council and the report could propose guidance to the Implementation
committee and the focus could be on what type of enforcement mechanism ICANN
could use to make sure registrars were complying with the contract. <br>
<br>
<b>Steve Metalitz</b> felt it was entirely unnecessary.<br>
<br>
<b>Jordyn Buchanan</b> expressed concern that forwarding recommendations to
the Council that would not gain consensus might loose some of the work and
recommendations
already put forward by task force 2 that gained support.<br>
<b><br>
Jordyn Buchanan</b> reported ICANN General Counsel had been contacted
regarding
Recommendation 2. Currently General Counsel was occupied but was aware of the
task force's need to meet.<br>
<br>
It was commented that nothing in the policy development process stipulated
consultation
with General Counsel</font></p>
<p><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><b>Next Calls :</b><br>
22 February: <br>
Discuss option A and B to be circulated on the task force list by the
co-chairs<br>
Discuss what should be done about Recommendation 2<br>
<br>
1 March<br>
</font><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Proposed call with .name,
.ca,
DeNIC and registrars that offer proxy services.<br>
<br>
<b>Jeff </b>and <b>Jordyn</b> thanked everybody for participating.<br>
<br>
The call ended at 17 :58 CET<br>
</font><br>
<font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><b><font size="3">Next Whois Task
Force 1/2 Call: 22 </font></b><font size="3"><b>February 2005<br>
see: </b><a href="http://gnso.icann.org/calendar/">GNSO calendar</a><b><br>
</b> <b><br>
<br>
</b></font><b><br>
</b></font></p>
<p> </p>
<p> </p>
<p> </p>
<p> </p>
<p> </p>
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|