[council] GNSO Council telconf. minutes Feb. 20, 2003 - text version
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.
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
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
* Item : Summary of last meeting
Ken Stubbs moved the adoption of the minutes seconded by Laurence
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
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.
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
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.
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.
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 184.108.40.206 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
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
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
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
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
- 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
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
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
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.
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
(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 220.127.116.11 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 18.104.22.168 of the RAA would then
(4). Section 22.214.171.124 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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
Information from: © GNSO Council