[dow3tf] WHOIS task force 3 revised minutes, December 10, 2003

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

With thanks and acknowledgement for the suggested changes, please check,
the December 10  revised minutes of task force 3 .

Thank you.

GNSO secretariat

<!--#set var="bartitle" value="WHOIS Task Force 3 minutes"-->
<!--#set var="pagetitle" value="WHOIS Task Force 3 minutes"-->
<!--#set var="11 Decemeber 2003" value=""-->
<!--#set var="bgcell" value="#ffffff"-->
<!--#include virtual="/header.shtml"-->
<!--#exec cmd="/usr/bin/perl /etc/gnso/menu.pl 'WHOIS Task Force 3 minutes'"-->
<p align="center"><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><b>WHOIS Task Force 
  3 Teleconference December 10 - Minutes</b></font></p>
<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"> Chair: Brian Darville 
  - representing Intellectual Property Interests Constituency <br>
  <br>
  Registrars Constituency - Ross Rader<br>
  Commercial and Business Users constituency: Marilyn Cade, Sarah Deutsch<br>
  Non Commercial Users Constituency: Frannie Wellings<br>
  Internet Service and Connectivity Providers constituency: Greg Ruth<br>
  <br>
  <b>Liaisons:</b><br>
  At-Large Advisory Committee (ALAC) liaisons: Vittorio Bertola<br>
  <br>
  <b>ICANN Staff Manager</b>: Barbara Roseman<br>
  </font><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><b>GNSO Secretariat:</b> Glen 
  de Saint G&eacute;ry <br>
  <br>
  <b>Absent: </b></font><br>
  <font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">gTLD Registries constituency: - Ken 
  Stubbs <br>
  Intellectual Property Interests Constituency - Terry Clark<br>
  Intellectual Property Interests Constituency - Kiyoshi Tsuru<br>
  <br>
  <a href="http://gnso-audio.icann.org/20031210whois3.mp3";>MP3 recording</a>: 
  <br>
  </font><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><br>
  The Chair, <b>Brian Darville</b> referred to the list of work items requested 
  from ICANN staff in regards to the various WHOIS Task Forces: <br>
  1) Request for statements of interest in PDP for use as informational material 
  in the publishing of any reports or policy proposals <br>
  <br>
  Task force members were urged to send these statements to Barbara Roseman or 
  the GNSO Secretariat<br>
  <br>
  2) An opinion from General Counsel on the status of various participants in 
  the Task Force, e.g., constituency representatives, liaisons, Nom-Comm appointees, 
  outside experts<br>
  </font></p>
<p><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Awaiting General Counsel's opinion<br>
  <br>
  3) Calendar for the Task Force with PDP mandated deadline</font></p>
<p><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Staff Manager reported that it was 
  being prepared<br>
  <br>
  <br>
  4) Assessment of data gathering process for Task Forces 2 and 3, and proposed 
  timeframes for completing that work<br>
  <b>Barbara Roseman</b> suggested getting the timeframe from Jordyn Buchanan 
  for task force 2 to work on.<br>
  A reasonable timeframe had to be submitted to Council and a request to Council 
  for an extension of time on a certain area of the work. Assessment of data gathering 
  would be dependent to a certain extent on some of the information from task 
  force 1 <br>
  </font></p>
<p><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Brian Darville referred to the <br>
  Tasks/Milestones from the <a href="http://gnso.icann.org/issues/whois-privacy/tor3.shtml";>task 
  force 3 terms of reference</a><br>
  ================ <br>
  <br>
  1. - collect information on the current techniques that registrars use to verify 
  that the data collected is correct. For example techniques to detect typing 
  errors by registrants intending to provide correct information. Survey approaches 
  used by cctlds to verify that the contact data collected is correct. <br>
  <b>Barbara Roseman</b> would contact ccTLDs launching group, it was believed 
  that the ccTLDs had a way of verifying collected was correct. <br>
  Check what elements they found as important .<br>
  <b>Comment by Frannie Wellings to revise the draft minutes:</b><br>
  I believe it was agreed that in task/milestone 2 regarding techniques used by 
  other online service providers, we decided to also consider the level of privacy 
  provided. It was concluded that the privacy protection relating to other types 
  of accuracy checks was important to include and is within the bounds of our 
  task force. <br>
  <br>
  2. - collect publicly available information on the techniques used by other 
  online service providers (to verify that data collected is correct) as well 
  as information on the price of services offered by the online service provider. 
  <br>
  <br>
  <b>Sarah Deutsch </b>offered to do brainstorming and find out what was available.<br>
  <b>Brian Darville</b>, the task force chair pointed to a useful <a href="http://www.circleid.com/article.php?id=82_0_1_0/";>article</a>: 
  <a href="http://www.circleid.com/article.php?id=82_0_1_0/";>Is Whois Data Accuracy 
  Enough</a>?</font></p>
<p><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><b>Greg Ruth</b> proposed revising 
  the RFCs to see whether there were any best practice documents</font></p>
<p><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><br>
  <b>Frannie Wellings </b>referred to the &quot;comments &quot; that were made 
  by the public during the open comment period and said that comments should not 
  merely be linked to/listed in the report. The comments should also be discussed 
  by the task force. <br>
  <b>Marilyn Cade </b>responded by saying that the task force would have to take 
  any comments to the Council - the Council was then responsible for revising 
  documents/work. <br>
  <b>Frannie Wellings</b> concern was to clarify both when and how the comments 
  would be addressed. A mandated comment period should not be for looks only. 
  For the integrity of the process at least, the comments should be given consideration. 
  <br>
  <br>
  <br>
  First data collection in by January 15 - 20 <br>
  Time frame proposed 3 weeks January 21 - 28 <br>
  <br>
  3. - create a best practices document for improving data verification based 
  on the information collected that can be applied on a global basis Put on hold 
  till after January 1 <br>
  <br>
  4. - determine whether any changes are required in the contracts to specify 
  what data verification is necessary at time of collection to improve accuracy 
  <br>
  <br>
  ICANN Staff should look at this. An analysis should be made of what it would 
  take to implement. <br>
  <br>
  5. - determine what verification mechanisms can be used cost effectively to 
  combat the deliberate provision of false information, and determine whether 
  additional mechanisms are necessary to provide traceability of registrants, 
  or provide for more timely responses for misuse of domain names associated with 
  deliberately false information.<br>
  <br>
  Could be compiled with point 3 There may be some information in the article 
  below <br>
  <a href="http://www.circleid.com/article.php?id=82_0_1_0/";>Is Whois Data Accuracy 
  Enough</a>? <br>
  Find someone to look up information </font></p>
<p><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><b>Marilyn Cade </b>reminded Task 
  force members that the GNSO Council was responsible for revising the scope of 
  work set out for the task force. All task force reports should include links 
  to comments received during comment periods.<br>
  </font><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><br>
  Follow up on milestones 1 and 2 <br>
  Focus on gathering additional information <br>
  </font><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><br>
  <b>Brian Darville thanked everyone for their presence and participation and 
  ended the call at 16:10 UTC.<br>
  <br>
  </b> <b>Next call: Wednesday 17 December</b> <b>15:00 UTC, 10:00 EST, 7:00 Los 
  Angeles, 16:00 CET.<br>
  <br>
  <br>
  </b></font></p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>