<<< Date Index >>>     <<< Thread Index >>>

[council] GNSO Council telconf. minutes Feb. 20, 2003 - text version

[To: council@xxxxxxxx]

Dear Council Members,

Please find the text version of the GNSO Council Teleconference minutes,
February 20, 2003,  below.
If there are any changes that you would like made, please contact me.

Thank you
Kind regards,

GNSO Secretariat


         GNSO Council Teleconference on 20 February 2003 - minutes

21 February 2003.

Proposed agenda and related documents

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

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

     Agenda approved

   * Item : Summary of last meeting

     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

     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.

     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.
     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.
     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

     - 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


     Bruce Tonkin summarized the procedure: At the December Council meeting
     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
     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
     Bruce Tonkin confirmed that the substance of all changes from the
     transfer implementation group were accepted with minor grammatical
     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
     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:
     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
     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
     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

   * Item 5: WHOIS
     - receive WHO's Implementation Committee report
     - 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


     Bruce Tonkin summarized the issue: at the Council meeting in December
     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
     [Note the Interim At-Large Advisory Committee submitted a statement to
     the council shortly before the meeting. This is included here for
     Interim At-Large Advisory Committee Comments on the WHOIS Task Force's
     Final Report on Accuracy and Bulk Access


     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

     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

     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 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


     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
     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
     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

     Roger Cochetti dropped off the call for a short time, proxy to Cary

     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
     Bruce Tonkin summarizing said before accuracy policy would be
     implemented, new policy/recommendations would be required to deal with
     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
     - 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
     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
     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
     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
     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
     (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 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 of the RAA would then
     become inapplicable.

     (4). Section 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

     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

   * Item 6. - Budget report

     Bruce Tonkin read the resolution proposed by Roger Cochetti at the last
     Council meeting

     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
     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
     Each nomination must be accompanied by a brief description of how the
     candidate meets the following selection criteria (from

     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
     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
     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
     see: http://www.dnso.org/meetings.html

                        Information from: © GNSO Council