RE: [whois-sc] Some thoughts on possible task forces

["Cade,Marilyn S - LGCRP" <mcade@xxxxxxx>]

Bruce, I greatly appreciate the extraordinary work which you have done to get the WHOIS Steering Group organized. However,
I am not convinced that the Council should undertake three separate task forces. I suggest that we consider further whether it is possible to deal with this in two task forces. It may not be... but the Steering Group should discuss that this p.m. call.

However, I have a further concern: operating multiple WHOIS TFs simultaneously will simply mean that the Council has no resources to undertake other important policy work, including the UDRP, and the new gTLD process. That isn't practical for us as Council. 

I strongly suggest that we take a progressive approach to the Task forces in any case, and undertake them essentially one at a time. 

Both your time as chair, and the rest of the Councilors, as well as the rest of the community, have limited time, and we are all concerned about having effective and well supported policy development processes. Limited resources are a reality.
202-255-7348c
mcade@xxxxxxx


-----Original Message-----
From: Bruce Tonkin [mailto:Bruce.Tonkin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Thursday, September 18, 2003 6:28 AM
To: whois-sc@xxxxxxxx
Subject: [whois-sc] Some thoughts on possible task forces


Hello All,

In reviewing the input provided by the GNSO constituencies, and also
information on the issues under consideration within the At Large
Advisory Committee, I believe that we need more than one task force.

We need to ensure that each task force has a narrow focus with a well
defined problem, and goals that are reasonably achievable within a
reasonable timeframe.

Here are the task forces as I see them (I will elaborate by a separate
mail some draft terms of reference for each for further discussion):

(1) Restricting bulk access to WHOIS data for marketing purposes
[issues included] - 10, 12, 13, 14, 15, and 16
[summary]
- bulk access to WHOIS data is available through a combination of
zonefile access, port-43 WHOIS protocol, interactive web pages, and bulk
access agreement.  There are currently limited mechanisms to restrict
access for marketing purposes.
[out-of-scope] 
- changes to bulk access agreement - this was the subject of a recent
policy update
- changes to the data collected or the data made available via anonymous
(public) data access (this will be part of a separate task force)
[in-scope]
- changes to the methods of access to the present data to prevent data
mining for marketing purposes
- ensuring that legitimate access to WHOIS - e.g by law enforcement,
intellectual property, network operations, consumer information are
maintained by any changes


(2) Review of data collected and data displayed
[issues included] - 1, 2, 3, 5, 11, 13
[summary] - domain name holders are concerned about the amount of
information that is made available for full public access and the amount
of information that they must provide
[in-scope]
- changes to the amount of data that must be collected
- changes to data provided for anonymous public access
- changes to the way registrants are informed about how their data is
made public or made available to other parties
[out-of-scope]
- mechanisms for access (covered by task force 1)

(3) Mechanisms for responding to domain name holders that deliberately
provide false information to avoid prosecution (e.g for criminal
behavior) or other civil legal action (e.g for trademark infringement)
[issues included] - 4, 6, 7, 18
[in-scope]
- should fully anonymous registration be permitted
- what other forms of data should registrars collect to assist
enforcement
(e.g credit card information, source IP addresses, web traffic logs)
- what action should be taken when a domain name is the subject of legal
action and the domain name holder has provided false information
- how to handle wide variations in legal jurisdiction (e.g laws
regarding website content may vary widely)
[out-of-scope]
- data quality relating to domain name holders mistyping some contact
information (usually at least one of the pieces of contact data will be
accurate in such cases), and data quality relating to a domain name
holder changing address, phone number etc after the point of
registration (this was covered by the recent WHOIS policy decision to
require an annual reminder message to be sent to domain name holders)
- mechanisms to further validate legitimate domain name holder data at
time of registration (registrars generally already procvide checks to
ensure that are able to obtain domain name renewal revenue)

I believe these three groupings incorporate all the issues identified as
priority issues by each constituency.  I also believe that the scope of
each group can be sufficiently narrowly defined to make progress, taking
into account the progress already made in the Board's decisions in March
to endorse the GNSO Council recent recommendations relating to WHOIS.

If the steering group agrees with the general areas above, I recommend
that we begin working on the terms of reference for each group in order
of priority above.
For example we should be able to kick off task force 1 in Tunisia.  Note
the GNSO Council must still approve any terms of reference before a task
force can be created.  Note also that the 3 task forces should maintain
coordination both between themselves and also with other areas of ICANN
including the ccNSO, GAC, SECSAC, and ALAC.  We might want to ensure
that we have a rep from each of these groups on each task force, and
also ensure that we have an appointed liaison from each task force on
the other two task forces.

In a separate post, I will have a go at a terms of reference for the
first task force for consideration.

Regards,
Bruce Tonkin