ICANN/GNSO GNSO Email List Archives


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

[dow2tf] Re: [dow1tf] WHOIS Task Force 1, 2, 3 July 20, 2004 - Minutes

  • To: "Neuman, Jeff" <Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxx>, <dow1tf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, <dow2tf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Subject: [dow2tf] Re: [dow1tf] WHOIS Task Force 1, 2, 3 July 20, 2004 - Minutes
  • From: "Anthony Harris" <harris@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Mon, 26 Jul 2004 15:34:43 -0300
  • Cc: <bruce.tonkin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, <gnso.secretariat@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • References: <7927C67249E4AD43BC05B539AF0D12980101EDD6@stntexch04.cis.neustar.com>
  • Sender: owner-dow2tf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx


All four work fine for me, whichever suits all.


Tony Harris
  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Neuman, Jeff 
  To: 'dow1tf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx' ; 'dow2tf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx' 
  Cc: 'bruce.tonkin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx' ; 'gnso.secretariat@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx' 
  Sent: Monday, July 26, 2004 7:09 AM
  Subject: FW: [dow1tf] WHOIS Task Force 1, 2, 3 July 20, 2004 - Minutes


  At the GNSO Council meeting in KL, it was decided to officially combine Task Forces 1 and 2.  I would like to know if it would be possible to have a call later this week or early next week to discuss our meetings in KL and a strategy for moving forward.

  Please let me know your availability (off list) on the following dates:  (note the date with the most people attending will be selected....hopefully we will have at least one person from each constituency).

  Thursday, July 29th:  9-11 am EST (2-4pm UTC)
  Friday, July 30th, 9-11 am EST
  Monday, August 2, 9-11 am EST
  Tuesday August 3, 9-11 am EST

  I know there will be people out on vacation, but we should try to push this project along.


  Jeff Neuman

  -----Original Message-----
  From: gnso.icann [mailto:gnso.secretariat@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
  Sent: Thursday, July 22, 2004 11:36 PM
  To: 1DOW1tf
  Subject: [dow1tf] WHOIS Task Force 1, 2, 3 July 20, 2004 - Minutes

  [To : Whois task forces 1, 2, 3]


  WHOIS Task Force 1, 2, 3  July 20, 2004 - Minutes


  Bruce Tonkin meeting chair
  Jeff Neuman - Chair tf 1
  David Fares (tf1)
  David Maher tf1 (also representing tf2)
  Antonio Harris (tf1)
  Milton Mueller (tf1 alternate tf2)
  Tom Keller (tf2)
  Ken Stubbs (tf3)
  Greg Ruth (tf3)
  Ross Rader (tf3)
  Alick Wilson
  Demi Getschko
  Carlos Afonso
  Cary Karp
  Philip Sheppard
  Tony Holmes
  Niklas Lagergren

  ICANN Vice President, Policy Development Support: Paul Verhoef
  ICANN Staff manager: Barbara Roseman
  GNSO Secretariat: Glen de Saint Géry 

  General Objectives - next steps 
  Review proposed recommendations 
  Review consensus policy recommendations already made, but not yet implemented, and whether they have relevance for current recommendations 
  Implementation analysis for proposed recommendations 

  o Reference implementation 
  Assess Implementability, technical and otherwise 
  How long to implement 
  Cost of implementation - impact on ICANN budget, registrars, registries, registrants, user community 
  Should aspects of implementation be standardised (specified as part of the policy) or left to the market 

  o Funding model for additional costs 
  Prioritise implementation work 
  Take small steps forward 

  TF1/TF2 discussion 
  Current state: all data available for anonymous public access 
  Port 43/web based (bulk access is out of scope) 

  TF2: conspicuous notice to registrants of current policy 
  need to clearly define "conspicuous notice". 
  Consider defining a reference implementation for conspicuous notice and assess whether parts of the implementation should be standardised (ie explicitly included in the policy specification) 

  How does current status of datacontractual requirements relate to national laws on privacy? 

  This issue is tightly associated with the degree of consent as discussed above. This will need to be assessed once the policy is improved. 

  Tiered Access 

  Basic data (e.g for purposes of contactability) (Tier 1) 
  Public, anonymous, doesn't matter who sees it 
  The working group needs to clearly recommend what information should be included in tier 1. Full data (e.g for purposes of accountability) (Tier 2) 
  Someone needs to be accountable for what happens with the use of this domain name 
  Identify the requestor of data 

  Questions: What falls into each set of data?
  TF 1 made a suggestion for how to distinguish the data 
  TFs both need to make clear what the definitions of the data sets would be 
  (Which data included in which set) 

  Need to determine how to implement the process of identifying the requestor 
  Some suggestions approaches include: 
  Centralised white list (user agreement w/license for multiple uses) 
  How would this scale? 
  Who maintains, how operated? 
  Who manages enforcement of license agreement? 
  Distributed white list 
  Each registrar creates white list and determines access 
  Trust model for sharing accreditation? 
  Cost effectiveness? 
  Individual use access 
  Can we do a combination of both centralised and distributed?
  What work is required for identifying the requestor? 
  Log the requests (e.g identity of requestor, domain name record retrieved, date) 
  How to conform with national privacy considerations on collection of information on WHOIS requestors 
  Log reason for request (e.g law enforcement, trademark enforcement, copyright enforcement, etc) 
  Do users requesting data on behalf of third parties need to identify the third parties? 
  How to prevent retrieved data being passed on to other parties? 
  Notify registrant?
  Immediate and/or 
  After some time 
  Issues with registrant contact in reseller chains 
  Provide information on request of registrant 
  Immediate and/or 
  After some time (supply reason for delay)
  *ICANN or registrar or White List maintainer could maintain log for statistical/oversight purposes -- Council could define appropriate measurements, data to be reported on 
  For what use? To what end? How do decisions based on measurements get fed back into enforcement, or changed rules, or changed policy? Much more discussion needed 

  TF3 Discussion
  Registrants have an obligation to provide accurate data 
  Registrars have an obligation to notifiy registrants of their responsibility WDRP 
  Reasonable attempt to ensure registrant corrects the data 
  Proposed work to be performed by ICANN staff 
  Centralised complaint form 
  Notify registrar of complaint 
  Compile report on activity of complaint system 
  Study effectiveness of WDRP 
  Need to determine if achievable within ICANN budget or whether additional funds required. 

  General comments on TF3 recommendations 

  The report refers to ICANN in several places. In some cases it seems to be referring to work required by ICANN staff, and in other cases it is referring to further policy development which would be ultimately done by a WHOIS task force (ie ourselves). 
  In some cases the report discusses issues associated with implementation and enforcement of new policies (e.g data verification) without making clear that the report proposes a new policy.

  In discussion of needing to improve implementation practices of existing policy - if it is the task force's view that such practices should become standardised - then these should be formulated in the form of additional policy recommendations (ie contractual obligations). 
  Thus the task force needs to clarify the use of language in the report to clearly identify where a new policy (and hence contractual obligation) is being proposed, where a refinement of an existing policy is being proposed , and where a request is being made to the ICANN staff to perform additional tasks. 
  Once the policy recommendations are clear, each recommendation will require work on iImplementability as per TF 1 and TF2. 
  Cost, resources, how enforced? 
  Sanctions? How is effectiveness evaluated? 

  Data analysis of other registrations by same registrant, or with similar registration data?

  New obligation - requires implementation analysis Additional measurements requested by ICANN 

  Is this covered in existing budget? Does it need additional resources assigned in future budgets? 

  Data verification 

  New obligation (or replacement of existing policy) Implementability -- Costs, etc. 
  Through email verification, or other, progressively more costly means 
  Affects every registrant 
  if done at time of registration affects every registrant, or could be done following a complaint, perhaps with some sort of reconnection charge when inaccurate data discovered. 

  - Prioritise those policy recommendations that "could" be implemented in the short term. 
  - E.g conspicuous notice, tiered access, monitoring improvements, improvement to process for responding to complaints about WHOIS accuracy 
  - Design reference implementations for new recommendations (new contractual obligations in the case of registries and registrars) 
  - Determine impact of implementations - costs, other issues 
  - Aim to get some recommendations completed quickly, and then continue implementation analysis of further refinements 
  - Measure impact of actual implementations of recommendations approved by the Board and use this to inform whether further refinement is necessary 

  Thanks to Barabara Roseman, ICANN staff Manager, who took notes and Bruce Tonkin for edits.


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