ICANN/GNSO GNSO Email List Archives


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

[dow2tf] Task Force 2 draft minutes, teleconf. Dec 15, 2003

  • To: "2DOW2tf" <dow2tf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Subject: [dow2tf] Task Force 2 draft minutes, teleconf. Dec 15, 2003
  • From: "GNSO SECRETARIAT" <gnso.secretariat@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Mon, 22 Dec 2003 23:01:31 +0100
  • Importance: Normal
  • Reply-to: <gnso.secretariat@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Sender: owner-dow2tf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx

[To: dow2tf[at]gnso.icann.org]

Please find attached a draft version of the teleconference minutes, December
15, 2003.
Please let me know what you would like added and changed.

Thank you very much.

GNSO Secretariat
<!--#set var="bartitle" value="WHOIS Task Force 2 minutes"-->
<!--#set var="pagetitle" value="WHOIS Task Force 2 minutes"-->
<!--#set var="15 December 2003" value=""-->
<!--#set var="bgcell" value="#ffffff"-->
<!--#include virtual="/header.shtml"-->
<!--#exec cmd="/usr/bin/perl /etc/gnso/menu.pl 'WHOIS Task Force 2 minutes'"-->
<p align="center"><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><b>WHOIS Task Force 
  2 Teleconference December 15 - Minutes</b></font></p>
<p><b><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">ATTENDEES:<br>
<p><b><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">GNSO Constituency representatives:<br>
  </font></b><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">gTLD Registries constituency: 
  - Jordyn Buchanan</font><b><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"> chair<br>
  </font></b><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Intellectual Property Interests 
  Constituency - Niklas Lagergren<br>
  Intellectual Property Interests Constituency - Steve Metalitz (speaker)<br>
  Registrars Constituency - Thomas Keller<br>
  Internet Service and Connectivity Providers constituency - Maggie Mansourkia 
  Commercial and Business Users constituency:- Marilyn Cade<br>
  Non Commercial Users Constituency:- Kathryn Kleiman<br>
  At the GNSO Council meeting held on November 20, 2003, a motion carried unanimously 
  appointing Amadeu Abril I Abril, as an independent Council member, to the WHOIS 
  task force 2 on Review of Data Collected and Displayed</font>.<b><br>
  </b><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"> <br>
  At-Large Advisory Committee (ALAC) liaisons - Thomas Roessler<br>
  <b>ICANN Staff Manager</b>: Barbara Roseman<br>
  <b>GNSO Secretariat:</b> Glen de Saint G&eacute;ry <br>
  <b>Absent with apologies</b></font><br>
  <font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">GNSO Council independent representative 
  - Amadeu Abril I Abril<br>
  gTLD Registries constituency </font><b><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">- 
  </font></b><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">David Maher</font><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"></font><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"> 
  The agenda was approved.<br>
  1. Extract and comment RAA provisions relevant to registrant notification and 
  consent regarding data collection and processing. Report back from ICANN staff<br>
  2. First set of definite questions to external groups or people - request for 
  data. <br>
  3. Timeline <br>
  <b>Jordyn Buchanan</b> proposed that the minutes of the December 1 meeting be 
  accepted, while the minutes of December 8 would be modified as requested by 
  Kathy Kleiman and approved when everyone had had a chance to read them.<br>
  The topic of <b>MP3</b> recordings was raised. It was the custom to make MP3 
  recordings to assist with minutes and have a record of the meeting. The practise 
  as such was approved but further thought was suggested on whether the recordings 
  should be made publicly available.<br>
  <b>Barbara Roseman</b> reported that the extracts from the Registrars Accreditation 
  Agreement regarding data collection, display and accuracy that had been drawn 
  up with the help of <b>Dan Halloran</b>, would be published within the next 
  It was suggested that to the extent to which this part of the fact-finding would 
  only concern the relevant rules from the RAA, that it would be extended to the 
  thick registry agreements, which would add the registrant's phone and fax number 
  to the WHOIS data set. <br>
  <b>Barbara Roseman</b> suggested, in consultation with <b>Dan Halloran</b> that 
  the top 20 registrars be targeted for finding out how current registrars informed 
  registrants on the use of data.<br>
  <b>Jordyn Buchanan's</b> concern was that not all registrars with particularly 
  good or particularly bad policies would be in the top 20. A balance would have 
  to be found with what could be done and the resources available at ICANN especially 
  with regard to resellers.<br>
  How resellers data should be documented was left open. <br>
  <b>Jordyn Buchanan</b> suggested the &quot;bucket&quot; or put in category form 
  could be used.<br>
  <b>Jordyn Buchanan </b>referred to the proposed questions for registrars: </font></p>
<p><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><b>Questions for top ten registrars</b>: 
  1) Please identify your top ten resellers, by volume. <br>
  Questions for all registrars: <br>
  1) What mechanisms do you use to inform potential and existing registrants of 
  the purpose for which contact data is collected, and how that data will be released 
  to the public? Please provide applicable URLs.<br>
  2) What mechanisms do you use to gain consent from registrants for the use of 
  their data? <br>
  3) If you offer registrations through channels other than your website, how 
  do the mechanisms used to inform registrants of the use of their contact data, 
  and to gain consent for that usage, differ from those used on the website? <br>
  4) What requirements, if any, do you make of your resellers in terms of informing 
  registrants of the use of their contact data, and gaining consent for that usage? 
  Proposed additions: How many Registrars have separate consent mechanisms for 
  their consent on the topic.<br>
  <b>Barbara Roseman</b> clarified the purpose of the questions to the registrars 
  which was to capture data that was not visible on their websites and the questions 
  should be framed accordingly. The questions under discussion should be regarded 
  as supplementary to the work being done by the ICANN staff.<br>
  </font><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><br>
  <b>Jordyn Buchanan,</b> commented that there were two questions in place to 
  get to provisions in the RAA across the staff survey and how disclosures were 
  made via other channels.<br>
  Another question that could be added would be: <br>
  what accommodation, if any, have you made to comply with local or national laws 
  regarding </font><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">the collection and 
  display of contact data.<br>
  <b>Steve Metalitz</b> proposed a follow up to the question specifying the laws.<br>
  <b>Jordyn Bucahan</b> commented that the questions could relate to more than 
  one milestones.<br>
  The approval of the final list of question would be done by e-mail on the mailing 
  list. <br>
  Additional questions as discussed would relate to:<br>
  a. purpose for which the contact data is collected <br>
  b. </font><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"> the intended recipients 
  or categories of recipients for contact data<br>
  c. which contact data is obligatory and which if any is voluntary<br>
  Steve Metalitz proposed drafting the questions and Jordyn Buchanan proposed 
  drafting the question on compliance with local or national laws.<br>
  <b>Jordyn Buchanan</b> read the -- <b>Questions for constituencies</b>: <br>
  1) For each existing data field within the Whois, please provide feedback to 
  the task force regarding the following: <br>
  a) Use. How do members of your constituency make use of the data? <br>
  b) Necessity. Is it necessary that this information be made available to members 
  of your constituency? If so, why? <br>
  c) Concerns. Describe any concerns your constituency may have with making this 
  information available.<br>
  2) If there are fields not presently available within Whois that would be of 
  use to members of your constituency, please suggest what those fields may be. 
  For each suggestion, provide feedback regarding the following:<br>
  a) Use. How would members of your constituency make use of the data?<br>
  b) Necessity. Is it necessary that this information be made available to members 
  of your constituency? If so, why? <br>
  3) Please comment on any mechanisms that you are aware of to allow anonymous 
  domain registrations, or to limit the amount of contact data made publicly available 
  through Whois? <br>
  <b>Kathy Kleiman</b> suggested an introduction for section 2 laying out the 
  data fields for the Registrars Accreditation Agreement as well as a public comment 
  period for the responses to the second part of the questionnaire, new data.<br>
  <b>Jordyn Buchanan</b> mentioned areas where public comment would be required 
  thus questions should be formulated to solicit these.<br>
  </font><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">a. Registrars and resellers 
  disclosure and consent of data collection and display policies<br>
  b. Outliers<br>
  c. Documentation of local privacy law with the help of the Governmental Advisory 
  Committee GAC and the ccNSO.<br>
  <b>Time Schedule:</b><br>
  <b>Jordyn Buchanan</b> proposed to submit the following timeframe to the GNSO 
  Council at the meeting on Thursday 18 December.</font></p>
<p><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Task force 2 initially convened 2 
  December. <br>
  Interim report on primary data and collection efforts by 15 January. <br>
  Data gathering public comment to commence in early January.<br>
  Public comment to end by 25 January .<br>
  </font><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><br>
  Data compiled from various sources by 2 February .<br>
  Constituency statements due 23 February.<br>
  Preliminary report prepared post-Rome ICANN meeting suggested 26 March which 
  is three weeks after the conclusion of the Rome meeting and should allow time 
  to create initial policy recommendations. <br>
  Public comment period (20 days)<br>
  Preparation of Final report (including any public comment of note) (10 days)<br>
  Council consideration of Final report (10 days) <br>
  Preparation of Board report (5 days) <br>
  </font><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><br>
  </font><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><b> Jordyn Buchanan thanked 
  everyone for their presence and participation and ended the call at 18:50 UTC.<br>
  </b> <b>Next call: Monday 15 December</b> <b>16:30 UTC, 11:30 EST, 8:30 Los 
  Angeles, 17:30 CET.<br>

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