ICANN/GNSO GNSO Email List Archives


<<< 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 
<h4 align="center"><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><b>WHOIS Task 
  1 &amp; 2 <br>
  15 February, 2005 - Minutes</b></font></h4>
<p><b><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">ATTENDEES:<br>
<p><b><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">GNSO Constituency 
  </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, 
  </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"> 
  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, 
  </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 
  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> 
  de Saint G&eacute;ry <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> 
  Ruiz <br>
  </font><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Nominating committee 
  - Amadeu Abril l Abril</font><br>
  <font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Intellectual Property Interests 
  - 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 
  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> 
  <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"> 
  Non Commercial Users Constituency - Kathy Kleiman</font><font face="Arial, 
Helvetica, sans-serif"><br>
  </font> <font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Internet Service and 
  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 
  <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 
  Property Constituency (IPC)</a> Statement <br>
  </font><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><a 
  Constituency </a>statement</font> <br>
  <font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><a 
  commercial Users Constituency </a>statement<br>
  and Business Users Constituency </a>statement</font> <br>
  <font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">The gTLD Registry and Internet 
  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 
  of the process where a report should be provided with statements attached 
  the views and impact on each constituency.<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, 
  the additional burden on the registrars)<br>
  Two constituencies opposed the recommendations:<br>
  Registrar constituency <br>
  Registries constituency<br>
  The registrars, though not unanimous felt that it added an unnecessary 
  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 
  who would have to pick up most of the costs. In addition it could have an 
  affect on the registrar client relationship. The registries unanimously 
  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 
  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 
  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 
  policy , but as a majority proposal. The ramifications were that if it was 
  a consensus policy, the Board could not impose it on the registrars and 
  and it would not become an automatic amendment to the contract.<br>
  <b>Jeff Neuman </b>proposed two options:</font></p>
<p><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">- open the process and examine 
  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 
  the objections are noted and the report is submitted to the GNSO council<br>
  Common ground: no constituency opposed making the end user or registrant 
  of what their information was going to be used for . It was in prescribing 
  their customers were made aware.</font></p>
<p><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><b>Steve Metalitz</b> referred to 
  the <a 
  Force 2 recommendations</a> and felt that they could all be adopted.<br>
  3.1 Notification and Consent </b><br>
  ICANN should:<br>
  a) incorporate compliance with the notification and consent requirement 
  Secs., as part of its overall plan to improve registrar 
  with the RAA. (See MOU Amendment II.C.14.d).<br>
  b) issue an advisory reminding registrars of the importance of compliance 
  this contractual requirement, even registrars operating primarily in 
  in which local law apparently does not require registrant consent to be 
  c) encourage development of best practices that will improve the 
  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 
  a policy development process (or other procedure) with goal of developing 
  best practices. <br>
  Jordyn Buchanan</b> responded that the registrar statement had adopted some 
  of the principles behind the task force recommendation but there was some 
  to adopting specific implementation mechanisms especially where they were 
  to implement or incompatible with existing registration processes. 
  the notion of best practices seemed compatible with the notion that the 
  put forward that they encouraged voluntary adoption of such measures. 
  some clarity about the way it might be done would be a policy that could be 
  <b>Jordyn Buchanan</b> asked about the status of task force 2 
  <a href="http://gnso.icann.org/meetings/minutes2-gnso-20jul04.htm";>GNSO 
  decision</a> on Whois task forces at the meeting in Kuala Lumpur in July 
  Whois task forces one and two combine and work together, in particular 
  at the tiered access option and developing further up-front advice to 
  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 
  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 
  <b>Jordyn Buchanan</b> suggested going back to the task force 2 
  presenting them to the Council to vote on rather than forwarding the 
  developed over the past few weeks.<br>
  <b>Steve Metalitz </b>expressed concern about the length of time it would 
  to go back to the constituencies for approval if there were changes brought 
  about in the recommendations.<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 
  and </font><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">referred to the <a 
  development process</a><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 
  Constituency Statements, Public Comment Report, and other information or 
  as applicable, into a single document ("Preliminary Task Force Report") and 
  distribute the Preliminary Task Force Report to the full task force within 
  (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 
  a Supermajority Vote. Within five (5) calendar days after the final task 
  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>
  <b>Jordyn Buchanan</b> commented that the <a 
  contemplated a meeting of the task force before the report went to the GNSO 
  </font><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><b>Jeff Neuman</b> suggested 
  that the<a 
  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 
  timeline for submission of constituency reports. Each statement should 
  indicate (i) the reasons underlying the position and (ii) the 
  that held the position; <br>
  3. An analysis of how the issue would affect each constituency of the task 
  including any financial impact on the constituency; <br>
  4. An analysis of the period of time that would likely be necessary to 
  the policy; and<br>
  5. The advice of any outside advisors appointed to the task force by the 
  accompanied by a detailed statement of the advisors' (i) qualifications and 
  relevant experience; and (ii) potential conflicts of interest. <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>
  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>
  <b>Steve Metalitz</b> felt it was entirely unnecessary.<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 
  already put forward by task force 2 that gained support.<br>
  Jordyn Buchanan</b> reported ICANN General Counsel had been contacted 
  Recommendation 2. Currently General Counsel was occupied but was aware of the 
  task force's need to meet.<br>
  It was commented that nothing in the policy development process stipulated 
  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 
  Discuss what should be done about Recommendation 2<br>
  1 March<br>
  </font><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Proposed call with .name, 
  DeNIC and registrars that offer proxy services.<br>
  <b>Jeff </b>and <b>Jordyn</b> thanked everybody for participating.<br>
  The call ended at 17 :58 CET<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>

<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>