|
ICANN/DNSO
|
GNSO Council Teleconference
on 20 February 2003 - minutes
|
21 February 2003.
Proposed agenda and related documents
http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20030220.GNSOteleconf-agenda.html
List of attendees:
Philip Sheppard - Commercial
& Business users C.
Marilyn Cade - Commercial & Business users C.
Grant Forsyth - Commercial & Business users C. Absent, apologies, proxy
to Marilyn Cade
Greg Ruth - ISCPC
Antonio Harris - ISCPC
Tony Holmes - ISCPC - absent - apologies, proxy to Antonio Harris
Philipp Grabensee - Registrars
Ken Stubbs - Registrars
Bruce Tonkin - Registrars
Roger Cochetti - gTLD
Jordyn Buchanan - gTLD
Cary Karp - gTLD
Ellen Shankman - Intellectual Property Interests C. - absent, apologies proxy
to Laurence Djolakian
Laurence Djolakian - Intellectual Property Interests C.
J. Scott Evans - Intellectual Property Interests C. - absent, apologies proxy
to Laurence Djolakian
Harold Feld - Non Commercial users C.
Chun Eung Hwi - Non Commercial users C.
Erick Iriate -Non Commercial users C.
14 Council Members
Louis Touton - ICANN General Counsel
Thomas Roessler- Interim At-Large
Committee Liaison (ALAC)
Task Force representatives invited:
Steve Metalitz - Intellectual Property Interests C. - WHOIS task force
Ruchika Agrawal - Non Commercial users C. - Whois task force
Jeff Neuman - gTLD Registry C. - Transfer Task Force
Ross Rader - Registrars C.
- Transfer Task Force
Dan Steinberg - Transfer Task Force
Glen de Saint Géry - GNSO Secretariat
MP3 recording of the meeting Philippe
Renaut - GNSO Secretariat/AFNIC
http://www.dnso.org/dnso/mp3/20030220.GNSOcouncil-teleconf.mp3
Quorum present at 15:10 (all times
reported are CET which is UTC + 1 during winter time in the northern hemisphere).
Bruce Tonkin chaired this teleconference.
- Item 1: Approval of the Agenda
http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20030220.GNSOteleconf-agenda.html
Agenda approved
- Item : Summary of last
meeting
http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/2002O116.GNSOteleconf-minutes.htm
Ken Stubbs moved the adoption of the minutes seconded by Laurence
Djolakian .
The motion was carried unanimously.
Decision 1: Motion adopted.
- Item 3: Ratify
e-mail vote on ITU resolution
http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20030204.Voteb1.html
Bruce Tonkin asked Louis Touton how the vote should be recorded in
the light of the sections from the bylaws quoted below and whether the number
of votes cast per constituency was applicable.
Louis Touton responded that in the current version of the bylaws the
quorum was based on a count of heads and the votes per constituency were applicable.
http://www.icann.org/general/archive-bylaws/bylaws-15dec02.htm#X
Section 8
A majority of the total number of GNSO Council members then in office shall
constitute a quorum for the transaction of business, and the act of a majority
of the GNSO Council members present at any meeting at which there is a quorum
shall be the act of the GNSO Council, unless otherwise provided herein.
http://www.icann.org/general/archive-bylaws/bylaws-15dec02.htm#X-5
Section 2
The number of votes that members of the GNSO Council may cast shall be equalized
so that the aggregate number of votes of representatives selected by the Constituencies
(currently the gTLD Registries and Registrars) that are under contract with
ICANN obligating them to implement ICANN-adopted policies is equal to the
number of votes of representatives selected by other Constituencies. Initially,
each member of the GNSO Council selected by the gTLD Registries Constituency
or the Registrars Constituency shall be entitled to cast two votes and all
other members (including those selected by the Nominating Committee) shall
be entitled to cast one vote. In the event that there is a change in the Constituencies
that are entitled to select voting members of the Names Council, the Board
shall review the change in circumstances and by resolution revise the procedure
for equalization of votes in a manner consistent with this paragraph 2.
Bruce Tonkin confirmed that a quorum of members voted and there was
quorum on the teleconference call.
The Secretary read out the list of names and the vote registered for
each person.
http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20030204.Voteb1.result.html
14 Council members agreed to the resolution, (two not recorded on the electronic
ballot; one lost ballot and vote by e-mail to the Secretariat, one person
voted in person on the call)
2 Abstentions, Chun Eung Hwi and Roger Cochetti (recorded as NO vote on the
ballot as they were incorrectly completed on the ballot form)
1 person did not vote.
The resolution was carried by 19 votes in favour (from 14 members, 2 abstentions
and 1 person did not vote.
- Decision 2. ITU Resolution
below adopted
WHEREAS, the GNSO Council, as the newly launched Council of the Generic Names
Supporting Organization, (hereinafter "the Council"):
o confirms its support to the participation of country code top-level domain
(ccTLD) registries within ICANN, looks forward to the establishment of the
new Country Code Names Supporting Organization as the body to address ccTLD
issues,
o commits itself to collaborative work with that Supporting Organization on
policy issues of mutual concern including the stability of the Internet;
o recognizing that the development of various processes, and resulting bylaws
which will establish the Country Code Names Supporting Organization are still
under development, commits itself to collaborative work on policy issues of
mutual concern in the interim;
WHEREAS, the Council commits itself to collaborative work with the ICANN Government
Advisory Committee (GAC) on policy issues of mutual concern including the
stability of the Internet; WHEREAS, the Council notes a proposed meeting to
be hosted by the International Telecommunications Union (ITU) and its member
countries, which will discuss issues related to ICANN and ccTLDs.
The Council Resolves:
to welcome the interaction of ICANN with relevant governments and inter-governmental
entities (such as the International Telecommunications Union (ITU), the World
Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO), the Organisation for Economic Cooperation
and Development (OECD) and the European Union (EU)) through the Governmental
Advisory Committee;
to encourage governments and such governmental entities to consider ICANN
as the primary venue to address Internet naming and numbering issues within
the mission of ICANN;
to encourage and welcome governments and such governmental entities to attend
and participate in ICANN's venues and meetings and to work actively within
ICANN.
- Item 4. Transfers
- receive Transfers Implementation Committee report http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20030130.TransfersImpFinalReport_v5.html
- receive update from Transfers Task Force
- discussion on updates
- vote to approve any revisions to the Transfers Recommendations
- vote to approve forwarding Transfer Task Force report incorporating the
Transfers Implementation Committee report to the ICANN Board
http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20030212.NCTransferTF-gaining-and-losing-registrars.html
Bruce Tonkin summarized the procedure: At the December Council meeting
http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20021214.NCteleconf-minutes.html
it was decided to form a Transfer implementation committee consisting of Registrars,
Registries and user representatives to consider whether the recommendations
of the Transfer Task Force were implementable. The implementation committee
found the recommendations to be implementable. The Transfer Task Force reviewed
the implementation committee's report, made minor changes and included it
in the Final Transfer Task Force report.
Marilyn Cade, announced that there were two Transfer Task Force members
on the call willing to answer questions and give explanations on the Final
Transfer Task Force report before Council, Jeff Neuman from the registry Constituency
and Ross Rader from the Registrars Constituency.
Laurence Djolakian asked whether there had been any input from the
Constituencies since the Council meeting in Amsterdam, to which Marilyn Cade
responded that there had been none.
Roger Cochetti asked what minor aspects of the implementation group
were not included in the report and if there were any significant changes?
Bruce Tonkin confirmed that the substance of all changes from the transfer
implementation group were accepted with minor grammatical improvements.
Ross Rader from the Transfer task force, in response to the question,
noted that the only real departure from the implementation committee was in
recommendation 24, where rather than accept the request to replace the recommendation,
the two recommendations were merged into one.
Jeff Neuman, also from the Transfer Task Force, concurred with Ross
Rader that the changes were minor.
Bruce Tonkin explained that a supermajority vote, 66 % was necessary
for the Final Transfer Task Force report to be sent to the ICANN Board for
approval as consensus policy, while a majority vote meant that the ICANN Board
could decide how to deal with the report as it was not formally a consensus
position. Registrars and Registry constituency members each had two votes
in accordance with the new bylaws:
http://www.icann.org/general/archive-bylaws/bylaws-15dec02.htm#X
section 5 (2)
Bruce Tonkin asked whether the period of time necessary to implement
the policy had been stipulated in the report.
Marilyn Cade said that it had not been included and could probably
not be done without consultation with the ICANN staff.
Bruce Tonkin noted that Registrars and Registries would be required
to to make an implementation time estimate and that both the Transfer Task
force, and the Transfer implementation committee would welcome consultation
with the ICANN staff on this matter.
Louis Touton stated that implementation involved not only time for
the contracted parties to technically implement, but also questions regarding
the legal structure, that is, the contracts that are involved. Some changes,
though not sure in the case of Transfers, may require filtering down through
renewing or revising all the 180 agreements that there are with Registrars
which could take up to 5 years.
Thus, the implementation will take appreciation of how particular parties
stand on renewing or revising their contracts.
Marilyn Cade asked whether parties would be able to change voluntarily,
to which Louis Touton replied that the details would have to be looked
at before answering.
Bruce Tonkin stated that the Transfer implementation committee report
stated that, time would be required to reach full compliance, with 3 to 6
months on the technical side:
Bruce Tonkin moved a formal vote on accepting the Final Report of the
Transfer Task Force.
The Final Report of the Transfer Task Force was unanimously accepted by the
GNSO Council with 24 votes to carry the motion.
Decision 3: Final Report of the Transfer Task Force was unanimously accepted
by the GNSO Council and will be forwarded to the ICANN Board as a consensus
policy.
Bruce Tonkin thanked the Chair of the Transfer Task Force, Marilyn
Cade, and Ross Rader in particular for the editing of the report as well as
all the Transfer Task Force member for the voluntary work they contributed.
Marilyn Cade thanked all the Transfer task force members for their
unstinted work, as well as the community for their participation and the Registrars
and Registries who met at short notice during the ICANN meetings in Shanghai.
The Transfer Task Force having concluded their work, was officially disbanded.
- Item 5: WHOIS
- receive WHO's Implementation Committee report http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20030130.WHOISImpFinalReport_v4.html
- receive update from WHOIS Task Force
- discussion on updates vote to approve proposed WHOIS Recommendations
- vote to approve forwarding WHOIS Task Force report incorporating the WHOIS
Implementation Committee report to the ICANN Board
http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20030219.WhoisTF-accuracy-and-bulkaccess.html
Bruce Tonkin summarized the issue: at
the Council meeting in December
http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20021214.NCteleconf-minutes.html
no decision was taken on the Final Whois Task Force recommendations. An implementation
committee consisting of registrars, registries, two members of the WHOIS Task
Force Steve Metalitz and Thomas Roessler and a representative from the non
commercial users constituency, Ruchika Agrawal, was formed to revise the recommendations.The
implementation committee report stated that the recommendations were not implementable
in their current form and recommended some changes that were consistent with
the intent to improve accuracy and reduce the use of bulk WHOIS for marketing.
The WHOIS task force took the implementation report into account in formulating
its final consensus recommendations. The final report incorporates an analysis
of the WHOIS implementation committee report, and further public comments
received since the meeting in Amsterdam.
[Note the Interim At-Large Advisory Committee submitted a statement to the
council shortly before the meeting. This is included here for reference:
Interim At-Large Advisory Committee Comments on the WHOIS Task Force's Final
Report on Accuracy and Bulk Access
Introduction
The Interim At-Large Advisory Committee thanks the WHOIS Task Force for its
exhaustive and diligent work on challenging policy issues, and appreciates
the opportunity to submit its comments on the Task Force's Final Report on
Accuracy and Bulk Access. We have considered the Task Force's recommendations
with a focus on their effect on individual Internet users, but also within
a broader policy context, and have tried to identify priorities for further
work where we believe that it needs to be undertaken.
The committee is aware that the Task Force is currently in the process of
producing issues reports on several topics; these issues reports will probably
cover many of the broader points we make in this document. We hope that the
present statement can serve as a useful contribution to that work. We are
also looking forward to further contributing to the issues reports themselves
and to the general discussion on WHOIS issues.
WHOIS Accuracy
The impact of any measures for the improvement of WHOIS Accuracy must be considered
with two very different classes of registrants in mind.
On the one hand, there are those registrants who welcome (or maybe just accept)
the publication of their data through the WHOIS database, and have a desire
that accurate data are published that way. There is no need for any formal
"enforcement" of accurate WHOIS data with respect to this class of registrants
-- instead, any measures to improve WHOIS data accuracy for this class of
registrants are about making registrars' processes more registrant-friendly,
and easier to use. An annual opportunity to review and easily correct WHOIS
data without sanctions in the case of registrant's non-response -- as recommended
by the Task Force as policy 1.A -- is one such step.
The second class of registrants is much more complex to handle: Those who
do not accept publication of personal data in registrars' and registries'
WHOIS systems, and provide "inaccurate" contact information to registrars.
There are various reasons registrants may have for this behaviour, both legitimate
and illegitimate; even worse, the concepts of legitimate and illegitimate
reasons vary across cultures and across constituencies.
A careful balance of diverging interests will have to be found in further
policy work. This balance will not only have to involve considerations on
how to ensure accurate WHOIS data: It will also have to take into account
the uses various parties may have for WHOIS data, and the conditions under
which the data are being made accessible. It will, finally, have to take into
account legitimate privacy interests of registrants, and applicable laws in
force in a wide variety of jurisdictions.
Considering the Task Force's recommendations, the ALAC observes that any measures
designed to enforce accuracy of publicly available WHOIS data against the
will of the domain name holder will shift the existing de-facto balance in
a way which benefits those who want to use the data (for whatever purpose,
legitimate or illegitimate), and which causes problems for those who don't
want to publish these data (once again, both for legitimate and illegitimate
reasons).
The specific steps proposed in chapter II.1.B of the Task Force's report describe
a complaint mechanism, by which a third party can trigger registrars to investigate
the accuracy of existing WHOIS data. This mechanism is presented as a practical
recommendation, not as a consensus policy. It is mostly based on the recommendations
of the GNSO's WHOIS Implementation Committee.
The ALAC appreciates that the process attempts to provide some basic safeguards
against fraudulent complaints by giving registrars some leeway to ignore obviously
unjustified complaints, and protect bona fide registrants. Once a complaint
is found justified, the registrar will send an inquiry to the registrant (through
any available contact points), and ask the registrant to provide updated information.
Any updated information received is subject to "commercially reasonable steps"
to check its plausibility; presumably, these steps will involve automated
heuristics. If these heuristics fail, "the registrant should be required to
provide further justification." ALAC interprets this to imply that automated
heuristic plausibility checks alone should not, in general, be a reason for
registrars to place existing domain names on hold, or cancel registrations
-- in particular in those situations in which the registrant has been successfully
contacted through some communications channel. ALAC also observes that, given
that many registrars accept customers around the globe, it may frequently
be easy for bad faith registrants to provide "plausible" data which are still
not useable as contact information.
The registrant only has limited time to respond to registrar's inquiry, which
is not specified in the Task Force's final report. The ALAC believes that
the WHOIS Implementation Committee's proposal to apply a 30 day time limit
is reasonable. Shorter time limits bear a variety of risks for bona fide registrants
which have been pointed out in many of the comments received by the WHOIS
Task Force. If necessary, the ALAC is available to contribute to any further
discussion of this issue.
When accurate WHOIS data are not provided during the correction period, the
domain name is put on hold according to the process proposed by the Task Force;
the registration is not immediately cancelled. ALAC appreciates that this
is a step designed in order to provide additional safety to registrants, and
to avoid certain incentives for abuses of the accuracy complaint mechanism.
Bulk Access
The Task Force's policy 2.A proposes that "use of bulk access WHOIS data for
marketing should not be permitted." In order to implement this policy, the
Task Force suggests a change to the bulk access agreement which is described
in section 3.3.6 of the RAA, and observes that the bulk-access provision in
section 3.3.6.6 of the RAA would become inapplicable. The WHOIS Implementation
Committee has, in its final report, stated that more specific language defining
"marketing activities" would be desirable. The ALAC cautions that any such
specification would have to ensure that no marketing use of bulk data is permitted
unconditionally which would have been covered by the current RAA language's
opt-out provision.
The ALAC appreciates that the Task Force's recommendations are an attempt
to limit undesired side effects of bulk access. But it is not clear to what
extent the new policy will indeed have the desired effect on marketing uses
of WHOIS data, since the enforceability of registrars' bulk access agreements
is questionable.
Thus, while the ALAC clearly supports the Task Force's recommendation, a more
fundamental review of the RAA's bulk access provisions must be undertaken.
Those purposes within the scope of ICANN's mission and core values for which
bulk access needs to be granted (if any) should be clearly identified, and
bulk access should only be made available for this limited set of purposes,
and to trustworthy data users. The review process will also need to take into
account legal concerns, such as the ones recently articulated in the European
Commission's contribution on WHOIS. The At-Large Advisory Committee considers
a review process of the RAA's bulk access provisions a priority, and will
contribute to it.
Besides these concerns about the RAA's bulk access provisions, the At-Large
Advisory Committee also observes that query-based WHOIS can be abused to automatically
obtain WHOIS information about large numbers of domains, as evidenced by a
recent attempt to copy Nominet's WHOIS database.
Conclusion
The Task Force's recommendations to systematically enforce the accuracy of
WHOIS data shift the existing balance between the interests of data users
and data subjects in favor of data users. In an environment where registrants
have perceived "inaccurate" data to be one of the most practical methods for
protecting their privacy, this shift of balance is reason for concern. It
will inevitably increase the need for privacy protection mechanisms to be
built into the contractual framework.
The Task Force's recommendations on Bulk Access remove one possibility for
undesirable uses of WHOIS data. The effectivity of this step is, however,
unclear since other ways to access WHOIS data en masse remain open.
Both observations together lead to the common conclusion that the Task Force's
recommendations can only be first steps towards a future WHOIS policy environment.
That future WHOIS policy environment will have to be designed with a renewed
focus on enforceability. In particular, this implies that the future policy
environment will have to directly address major issues left open at this point
of time - such as registrants' privacy. Relying upon non-enforcement of policy
instead is not an option.
The ALAC is available to contribute to future discussions on revising WHOIS
policy. These discussions should begin as swiftly as possible.]
Chun Eung Hwi asked
how the input of the non commercial constituency was included.
Marilyn Cade asked the members of the WHOIS Task Force that were on
the call to identify themselves:
Steve Metalitz, Thomas Roessler and Ruchika Agrawal were present.
Marilyn Cade asked Chun Eung Hwi whether his question related to the
input of the non commercial users constituency (NCUC) to the implementation
process or to the inclusion of the NCUC input to the work of the WHOIS Task
Force over all in the final report.
Chun Eung Hwi explained that the WHOIS implementation committee's goal
to review the implementation process was limited and that the main concern
was with the recommendations of the WHOIS Final report.
Bruce Tonkin stated that it was necessary to respond to the minority
position put forward by the NCUC within the WHOIS task force that related
to the need to take privacy into account.
Chun Eung Hwi clarified the position, saying that the recommendations
of the WHOIS task force were based on assumptions that privacy issues could
be dealt with after the recommendations were accepted in the form of an issues
report. During the work of the WHOIS task force the NCUC representative discovered
that privacy and accuracy were two related issues and thus the assumptions
of the recommendations, challenged by the NCUC representative in a minority
report, were not acceptable to the NCUC.
Marilyn Cade clarified the WHOIS task force assumptions from the beginning
when Paul Kane was the WHOIS task force chair, through analyzing the questionnaire,
to the decision made by the task force recognizing that more work was needed
on privacy, accuracy and bulk access. In addressing bulk access, two areas
were covered, misuse of the data, and the possibility of data being sold in
ways the registrants did not concur with, because of privacy concerns. The
interim report (http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20021015.NCWhoisTF-interim-report.html
had an extensive list of recommendations on consensus policy, that were narrowed
down as achievable at the present, taking into account concerns about privacy
problems based on feedback from the community of how inaccurate data harms
the registrant and registrar.
The WHOIS task force tried to achieve a balance asking the registrar to remind
the registrant about the importance of accurate data.
Privacy has been identified as a subject for further work and the task force
is cognizant of the privacy issues in the limited recommendations put forward.
Antonio Harris, WHOIS task force co-chair responded as follows to the
NCUC minority position:
- if one wants to hide identity, you don't need a top level (gltd) domain.
There are organizations that would provide second level domains to protect
the identity of the registrant.
- in Argentina privacy laws prohibits data bases of personal data, but a person
can consent to the display of data and buying a domain name means that the
person consents to the display of the data provided.
- the allegation that people's lives were in danger was far fetched. There
were public rights organizations to harbor those who wanted freedom of speech
and did not want to be detected by their governments.
Thomas Roessler, a WHOIS task force member stated that the working
assumption of the task force was that privacy issues and bulk access would
be treated by the GNSO as priorities and issues reports on these matters were
being prepared to present at the Council meeting in Rio de Janeiro.
Roger Cochetti dropped
off the call for a short time, proxy to Cary Karp.
Steve Metalitz, a WHOIS task force member, stated that the NCUC
was invited to participate throughout the working of the task force where
dissenting opinions were expressed and addressed during the process.The comment
from the NCUC came out two weeks after the final report, so it was difficult
to respond on the merits.
Laurence Djolakian agreed with the comments made by Antonio Harris
and expressed concern that the NCUC comments had been received so late, while
the task force work had been in progress for more than a year. In addition
the question was asked whether the NCUC had been regularly informed of the
work in progress.
Ruchika Agrawal, a WHOIS task force member stated that enforcement
of accuracy of WHOIS data has serious implications on privacy. Domain name
registrants have legitimate reasons for providing inaccurate WHOIS data to
protect their privacy and personal identifiable information particularly when
there were no privacy safeguards in place. As a way to move forward the NCUC
asked that the enforcement of accuracy would be concurrent with the assurance
of privacy safeguards. The NCUC has consistently raised privacy issues since
the first interim report was published.
Bruce Tonkin summarizing said before accuracy policy would be implemented,
new policy/recommendations would be required to deal with privacy.
Thomas Roessler wanted to make sure that the same issues were being
understood. The WHOIS report has two different statements on accuracy:
- accuracy recommendations on consensus policy sending regular reminders to
registrants
with no sanctions tied to that policy
- the way in which the Redemption Grace Period should be applied to domain
names which are deleted in the process of an accuracy complaint
as consensus policies identified in the WHOIS task force report.
Other recommendations from the task force that existing policy should be enforced
in a more stringent way with no process proposed.
The question was whether Bruce Tonkin and Ruchika Agrawal were
in agreement about which part of the report was being discussed.
Bruce Tonkin explained the difference between accuracy and the display
of data. The WHOIS report dealt with the issue of accuracy not with the display
of the data. Display of the data raises privacy issues.
Accuracy and privacy were two different matters.
Ken Stubbs agreed with Bruce Tonkin and added that the WHOIS task force
assumption was that privacy issues would be dealt with on a timely basis in
moving forward.
Bruce Tonkin proposed the formation of a policy development process
on privacy for the March meeting agenda in the form of an issues report.
The NCUC was extended an invitation to create their own issues report on the
subject and present it at the Council meeting in March.
Chun Eung Hwi agreed with disallowing bulk access and narrowing down
the scope of the recommendations, in the WHOIS Final report. However he went
on to mention that in reality, customers related privacy and accuracy issues.
In dealing with the two issues separately there was ambiguity about the relationship.
Bruce Tonkin said that in later work, privacy and accuracy issues could
be recommended as consensus policy.
Marilyn Cade stated that the WHOIS task force is preparing 3 issues
reports:
- Privacy
- Uniformity and consistency of data elements and searchability
- Consideration of further work on accuracy under the understanding that the
examination of privacy issues is being undertaken.
Jordyn Buchanan commended the WHOIS Task Force on the work accomplished,
and agreed that a policy development process on privacy should be rapidly
initiated. At the time of implementation, Privacy and Accuracy must be linked
together and not addressed independently. Furthermore, Privacy issues may
require modifications to existing Consensus Policy.
The gTLD registries are concerned that once Consensus Policy is endorsed,
particularly in the area of Accuracy, any such policy cannot (and should not)
be implemented without providing due consideration to Privacy.
In addition the task force report recommendations should be accepted and until
such time as the privacy recommendations have been developed, the accuracy
recommendations should not be mandatory but rather act as guidelines.
Roger Cochetti agreed with Jordyn Buchanan
Bruce Tonkin summarized:
- resolve to accept the recommendations of the WHOIS task force
- include a recommendation that the recommendations made by the WHOIS Task
Force in the Final Report do not become mandatory until the privacy policy
development process is completed.
Marylin Cade asked for clarification on the consensus policy statement
on accuracy relating to the redemption grace period and said that conversations
with registrars and registries showed that a domain name was rarely deleted
because of inaccurate data.
Jordyn Buchanan stated that the findings of the Deletes task force
indicated that the Redemption Grace Period was too expensive and it should
not be obligatory for registries to implement.
Bruce Tonkin suggested resolving to accept the WHOIS report, transmit
it to the Board, but that it should not be implemented for 6 months, during
which time a policy development process on privacy would be initiated and
with issues arising the accuracy recommendations could be modified.
Laurence Djolakian asked why the report would be sent to the Board
if it was not binding.
Bruce Tonkin explained that the timing of the implementation was set
at 6 months, during which time the Council could change the recommendations
as they stand.
Thomas Roessler cautioned about a blanket referral as there was no
dissension on the bulk access recommendations.
Louis Touton took up Thomas Roessler's concern and said that in addition
to having 2 general issues on which consensus policy is recommended in the
report there was other material that did not relate to consensus policy and
is a reaffirmation of existing policies, thus additional specificity would
be appropriate.
Jordyn Buchanan agreed with the previous views and added that timing
should be tied to work on privacy rather than a time period.
Roger Cochetti dropped off temporarily, proxy to Jordyn Buchanan
Marilyn Cade commented on the reasons for inaccurate data
and expressed concern about delaying dealing with bulk access.
Jordyn Buchanan pointed out that the intent was not to stop dealing
with the problem but to tie privacy to the mandatory implementation
of the recommendations.
Bruce Tonkin proposed that the suggested changes for the implementation
of accuracy be considered in the light of privacy issues, with a delay of
6 months for the implementation of privacy and
that the bulk access provisions be presented to the Board for immediate action.
Louis Touton commented that there were 2 sets of consensus policies
in the report each with 2 parts.
- Accuracy
-Bulk access
While most of the discussion was focussed on accuracy, and the accuracy consensus
policies say:
a. annually the registrar should remind the registrant that false information
can be grounds for cancellation of the registration.
This would be a new requirement on registrars that annually they provide a
reminder.
b. that a name deleted for inaccuracy not be restored until the updated data
is provided.
This recommendation is inherent in the structure.
Surprise was expressed by the discussion about the linkage of accuracy and
privacy while the accuracy provisions were not so "earth shaking".
Bruce Tonkin proposed voting on the entire
WHOIS Task Force Final report which includes 4 consensus policy recommendations.
(1) At least annually, a registrar must present to the Registrant the current
WHOIS information, and remind the registrant that provision of false WHOIS
information can be grounds for cancellation of their domain name registration.
Registrants must review their WHOIS data, and make any corrections.
(2) When registrations are deleted on the basis of submission of false contact
data or non-response to registrar inquiries, the redemption grace period --
once implemented -- should be applied. However, the redeemed domain name should
be placed in registrar hold status until the registrant has provided updated
WHOIS information to the registrar-of-record.
(3) Use of bulk access WHOIS data for marketing should not be permitted. The
Task Force therefore recommends that the obligations contained in the relevant
provisions of the RAA be modified to eliminate the use of bulk access WHOIS
data for marketing purposes. The obligation currently expressed in section
3.3.6.3 of the RAA could, for instance, be changed to read as follows (changed
language underlined):
"Registrar's access agreement shall require the third party to agree not to
use the data to allow, enable, or otherwise support any marketing activities,
regardless of the medium used. Such media include but are not limited to e-mail,
telephone, facsimile, postal mail, SMS, and wireless alerts."
The bulk-access provision contained in 3.3.6.6 of the RAA would then become
inapplicable.
(4). Section 3.3.6.5 of the Registrar Accreditation Agreement currently describes
an optional clause of registrars' bulk access agreements, which disallows
further resale or redistribution of bulk WHOIS data by data users. The use
of this clause shall be made mandatory.
It is noted that the rest
of the report is not meant to be new binding consensus policy.
The motion was carried with 21 votes in favour and 3 votes against. The votes
against were registered by Eung Hwi Chun, Harold Feld, and Erick Iriarte.
Decision 4: Final Report of theWHOIS Task Force with the four consensus
policy recommendations was accepted by the GNSO Council and will be forwarded
to the ICANN Board.
Bruce Tonkin thanked the two WHOIS task force co-chairs and all the
task force members for the tens of thousands of work hours put into the report.
- Item 6. - Budget report
Bruce Tonkin read the resolution proposed by Roger Cochetti at the
last Council meeting
http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20030116.GNSOteleconf-minutes.html
Recognizing that during 2000, AFNIC provided services to the DNSO, mainly
consisting of hosting and operating the DNSO Website, without any agreement
or contract with the DNSO to do so Recognizing that in 2001, the DNSO Council,
on advice from its Budget Committee, agreed to make a payment to AFNIC for
these services of $59,400 pending the resolution of three administrative matters
Recognizing that two of these administrative matters were resolved but the
third, which provided for the transfer of ownership rights over any "software
developed by AFNIC for the DNSO during 2000" from AFNIC to the DNSO, became
the subject of a dispute between ICANN management, acting as an agent for
the DNSO, and AFNIC. Recognizing that this dispute has delayed the payment
of the budgeted $59,400 to AFNIC since 2001 and that the software in question
is no longer used by the GNSO. The GNSO Council decides to immediately release
the above-noted $59,400 in funds to AFNIC for the full settlement of payment
for services provided by AFNIC to the DNSO during 2000.
Motion carried unanimously
Decision 5: immediate release of $59,400 in funds to AFNIC
- Item 7. Procedure to elect
GNSO Board seats 13 and 14
Discuss following proposed procedure and agree on final procedure
Bruce Tonkin proposed the following procedure and timelines:
20 Feb 2003: call for nominations by members of the GNSO Council (14 day period)
6 March 2003: 14 day e-mail vote for seat 14 on ICANN Board (note: the resulting
director will sit on Board from mid 2003 until 2nd quarter 2005)
25 March 2003: ratify the email vote for seat 14 at the GNSO Council meeting
in Rio de Janeiro
26 March 2003: call for any additional nominations by members of the GNSO
Council (7 day period) taking into account result of vote for seat 14 and
the need for geographic diversity between the holder of seat 13 and 14
2 April 2003: 14 day mail vote for seat 13 on ICANN Board (note: the resulting
director will sit on the Board from mid 2003 until 2nd quarter 2004)
17 April 2003: ratify e-mail vote for seat 13 at GNSO Council teleconference
Each nomination must be accompanied by a brief description of how the candidate
meets the following selection criteria (from http://www.icann.org/minutes/minutes-appa-31oct02.htm#VI)
Louis Touton stated that the votes should be counted in an equalized
fashion in accordance with the bylaws, article 10 that provides that a majority
of the members, at least 10 must be supportive of the prevailing candidate.
Current bylaws were mentioned taking into account the inconsistency pointed
out by Philip Sheppard, and that a revision was underway which would equalize
the counting of heads.
Ken Stubbs asked whether a Board member could be a nominating committee
member as well. If some one was nominated by the GNSO to the Board and that
person was currently a nominating committee member would that be allowed?
Louis Touton said that dual service was not prohibited. The prohibition
that has been posted in the bylaws correction in this area is that if one
serves on the nominating committee one cannot be selected by that nominating
committee.
Bruce Tonkin said that the person on the nominating committee could
be selected by the GNSO Council.
Bruce Tonkin called for a vote on the process.
The process was carried unanimously.
Decision 6. Process for electing ICANN board members to fill seats 13 and
14.
The nomination process starts immediately for the next 14 days.
- Item 8: AOB
Bruce Tonkin mentioned the GNSO Chair elections.
Elections took place in September2002 and new elections would normally be
in March 2003 according to the Council meeting in December
http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20021214.NCteleconf-minutes.html
The question was whether these would take place at the same time as the ICANN
Board elections or afterwards.
Marilyn Cade stated that continuity during the election of Board members
and the development of a revised rules of procedure was important and it would
be preferable to have a vote for the new chair after the ICANN Board elections.
Ken Stubbs expressed concern that extra support was needed for the
Council and the GNSO chair and urged for a solution.
- Bruce Tonkin agreed to arrange
an election for the GNSO chair after the elections for seats 13 and 14 on
the Board, but would hold it earlier if requested by the GNSO council.
Bruce Tonkin declared GNSO meeting closed and thanked all the participants
for being on the call.
Call ended: 17:00 CET, 16:00 UTC, Thursday 20, February, 3:00 Melbourne
time, Friday 21 February 2003.
Next GNSO Council teleconference: Tuesday March 25, 2003 at Rio
de Janeiro.
see: http://www.dnso.org/meetings.html
Information from:
|
© GNSO Council
|
|