[dow2tf] Whois tf 2: draft Sections 1.1 and 1.2, Marilyn Cade"s contribution - plain text

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

WHOIS DRAFT

Introduction:


1.1 History/Previous Activities

WHOIS has been a topic of interest and focus for ICANN since its early days.
ICANN?s DNSO (Domain Name Supporting Organization, the precursor to the
gNSO) created a Names Council Task Force to first consider WHOIS. Based on
the recommendations of that Task Force, the DNSO created a policy Task
Force, with the terms of reference: ?Consult with the community with regard
to establish whether a revision is due, and how best to address?; this Task
Force, composed of representatives from all constituencies, including the
ccTLDs and the General Assembly, launched a survey of WHOIS and its use. The
Task Force undertook the survey and analysis of the responses, and prepared
a report that included both consensus policy recommendations and other
considerations for the Council to consider in further policy work. The
survey consisted of 20 questions, 19 of which are multiple choice, with
narrative response allowed, and one question that was free form and allowed
respondents to provide any additional input they chose. In order to ensure
road and diverse consideration of the survey?s findings, the Task Force was
expanded to include up to three representatives of each of the
constituencies of the then DNSO, and the General Assembly. The survey
finding and analysis, and membership from the Constituencies, General
assembly can be found at {insert link}

In order to meet its mandate of consulting broadly with the community, in
addition to the survey and analysis of the responses, the Task Force
undertook extensive outreach to various experts and groups, in order to
inform and provide critical additional input to the Task Force, including
consultation within the constituencies and General Assembly.
Consultation via conference calls were held with experts from ccTLDs, IETF
leadership, the Security and Stability Advisory Committee regarding its
report on the impact of WHOIS on security and stability of the Internet; two
presentations were hosted with. Name and the IETF CRISP working group.
Transcripts of these conference call consultations were provided and are
available in the DNSO archive. In the course of the work of the Task Force,
workshops were also held to brief Council, the Board and the community;
these workshops included both reports on the work of the Task Force and its
findings, and also on the expert input the Task Force was receiving,
including questions related to privacy and accuracy of data.

A final policy report [November 30,2002] was prepared, with public comment
period, and a final Policy Report published on December, 2002, proposing
both consensus policy an d enhancement s in ICANN?s enforcement of existing
obligations in two areas: Accuracy and Bulk access. Further work was
recommended for both areas and on searchability and consistency of data
elements across all TLDS. At its Amsterdam meeting, the Council discussed
the TF report and reopened the report for further comment by constituencies
and the community. And, at this meeting, the Council also established an
Implementation Committee, with a deadline of January 31,2003.
Certain elements of Accuracy of WHOIS data were recommended as consensus
elements as established by the initial WHOIS Task Force. The consensus
policy recommended by the TF, would require the notification, at least
annually, of a reminder to the registrant, that their data must be accurate,
or that they can potentially lose their registration. Further consensus
recommendations included how to deal with names that are deleted due to
inaccurate data and reinstatement opportunities [dependent upon a standard
deletes policy that was subsequently developed and approved by Council]. .
These became consensus policy of ICANN, based on the Council?s approval, and
Board acceptance of the recommendation of consensus policy.

A second consensus policy recommendation related to bulk access to WHOIS
data was presented: Use of bulk access WHOIS data for marketing should not
be permitted. The TF recommended modifications, as needed in registrars
access agreements to prevent third parties from using the data for marketing
purposes, regardless of the media used. This was forwarded to the Board as
consensus policy.

. The recommendations of the WHOIS Task Force included the continuance of
work by Council in several areas {link:]. These were not presented as
consensus policy but as recommendations to Council for consideration in the
further work of Council related to WHOIS.

Documents of relevance include the final consensus policy recommendations
[Final Report of the GNSO Councils WHOIS TF on Accuracy and Bulk Access,
Feb. 6, 2003] approved by the Council, and forwarded to the ICANN Board on
(insert date). The report of the Task Force also included some
recommendations to Council that were recommendations to ICANN staff. These
recommendations are also contained in the final report approved by Council.
(Insert link).

The Implementation Committee report can e found at {link]. The Council
received the Implementation Committee report and included its
recommendations in the final Report forwarded to the Board (insert date).


1.2 Genesis of the Task Force

Following the work and recommendation of the original TF on WHOIS, council
discussed how to proceed on WHOIS issues. .  Council did not consider the
previous TF further recommendations definitive, and thus, there may appear
to be something of a discontinuity between the recommendations for further
work provided by the initial WHOIS TF and the existing Council TF work on
WHOIS. Some areas suggested by the previous TF are being addressed, and some
are pending.

The Council was divided on how to proceed in addressing next stages of work
on
WHOIS, with some members preferring to focus on the recommendations from the
Task
Force for next stages of work, and others primarily concerned about privacy
aspects of
WHOIS.  Council decided to create a WHOIS Privacy Steering Group, chaired by
Bruce
Tonkin, also chair of the Council, in order to examine what issues should be
addressed by
Further WHOIS TFs of Council. Efforts were made to identify a neutral chair,
but given
Time constraints, the group agreed to conduct their work with the chair of
Council as the
Chair of the group.  The group included members from all constituencies,
liaisons from
ALAC, ccTLDs, GAC and Nominating Committee members. [see list at ? ] The
group
worked to identify priorities for the community based on a review of the
constituencies
and the stakeholders perspectives. [See August 14.2003 WHOIS Privacy Issue
Table].
This work provided the basis for Council?s chartering of further Task Force
work on
WHOIS. The work of this group is important to guide the development of the
TFs of
Council, and remains a relevant document to inform and advise all the TFs,
and the
Council itself.

To inform its work, the Privacy Steering Group held several conference call
meetings, met face to face at ICANN meetings, and hosted two workshops:
Montreal and Tunisia, where invited experts from key stakeholder groups were
invited to present. Presentations were invited from all constituencies and
the At Large Advisory Committee.   participants from the OECD, the U.S.
Federal Trade Commission and the US Department of Justice; the European
Commission;  WIPO, and data privacy experts from Europe, and industry
experts in intellectual property issues affected by WHOIS, as well as ccTLD
managers who were invited as experts on how particular issues are dealt with
within their ccTLD. (see {insert link} for presentations and agenda for
workshops at Montreal and Tunisia).

The Council reviewed the work and recommendations of the original TF, and
the WHOIS Privacy Steering Group, as well as the public comments and
workshop presentations, and decided to create a new PDP related to WHOIS
policy. The Council was divided on how best to address the work and after
much debate, decided to launch three simultaneous TFs on WHOIS, with the
assumption that the alignment of recommendations will take place in Council.
The TF were launched on [date]; the Descriptions of Work (DOW) of each Task
Force is available at {insert link].