October 2003 - council - lists.icann.org

Representatives required for WHOIS task forces
by Bruce Tonkin Oct. 30, 2003

Oct. 30, 2003

Hello All, Under the ICANN by-laws, each constituency is invited to appoint a representative to each of the three WHOIS task forces in the next 10 days. The task forces are described at: http://gnso.icann.org/issues/whois-privacy/index.shtml From: http://www.icann.org/general/bylaws.htm#AnnexA "Any constituency wishing to appoint a Representative to the task force must submit the name of the constituency designee to the Staff Manager within ten (10) calendar days after such request in order to be included on the task force. Such designee need not be a member of the Council, but must be an individual who has an interest, and ideally knowledge and expertise, in the area to be developed, coupled with the ability to devote a substantial amount of time to task force activities." The sooner we can appoint the representatives, the sooner we can form the task forces and let the members of the task forces consider a timetable to complete the work. Under the by-laws, the Council may appoint up to three outside advisors to sit on the task force. If any of the council members appointed by the nominating committee wish to serve on one or more of the task forces please let the council know. Regards, Bruce Tonkin

1 0

Motion regarding sponsored TLDs
by Bruce Tonkin Oct. 30, 2003

Oct. 30, 2003

Hello All, Here is the text of the motion approved yesterday: "The Council, as the bottom up policy development body for the gTLDs, requests clarification as to the whether the Board is changing its Amsterdam 2002 commitment to the community to go forward with the process for an interim round of sponsored TLDs, and if so why. The Council expresses strong concern that the Board may have taken a decision in this policy area without consulting Council." Regards, Bruce

1 0

GNSO website links to GNSO meeting captioning and WHOIS Descriptions of work
by GNSO SECRETARIAT Oct. 30, 2003

Oct. 30, 2003

[To :council@gnso.icann.org] [To : whois-sc(a)gnso.icann.org] Please find the GNSO Council Carthage meeting captioning at: http://www.icann.org/carthage/captioning-gnso-29oct03.htm Please find the Descriptions of work in the 3 WHOIS areas as amended and voted on at the GNSO Council Carthage meeting, October 29,2003 at: http://www.gnso.icann.org/issues/whois-privacy/index.shtml Thank you. GNSO Secretariat

1 0

TR : MOU Milestones
by GNSO SECRETARIAT Oct. 30, 2003

Oct. 30, 2003

-----Message d'origine----- De : Michael D. Palage [mailto:michael@palage.com] Envoyé : mardi 28 octobre 2003 13:04 À : Milton Mueller; greg.ruth(a)verizon.com; alick.wilson(a)xendra.co.nz; Bruce Tonkin Cc : Glen De Saint Gery Objet : MOU Milestones Hello All: I would like to thank the GNSO for inviting the ICANN Board to breakfast to help better understand the objectives and concerns of the GNSO. After the meeting I spoke with a number of council members regarding ICANN objectives regarding requirements set forth in the MOU. In an effort to visually illustrate this daunting schedule please refer to the following document. Should you have any questions or comments please do not hesitate to contact me. Best regards, Michael D. Palage

1 0

I am on the line
by Neuman, Jeff Oct. 29, 2003

Oct. 29, 2003

But just in case I get disconnected, I give my proxy to Jordyn, Jeffrey J. Neuman, Esq. Director, Law & Policy NeuStar, Inc. Loudoun Tech Center 46000 Center Oak Plaza Building X Sterling, VA 20166 p: (571) 434-5772 f: (571) 434-5735 e-mail: Jeff.Neuman(a)Neustar.us

1 0

Request from the At Large Advisory Committee with respect to WHOIS policy development
by Bruce Tonkin Oct. 28, 2003

Oct. 28, 2003

-----Original Message----- From: Vittorio Bertola [mailto:vb@bertola.eu.org] Sent: Monday, 27 October 2003 7:06 PM To: Bruce Tonkin Dear Bruce, the At-Large Advisory Committee has been closely watching recent discussions on the GNSO Council and the GNSO's WHOIS Steering Committee. We believe that a review of the data elements collected and displayed (as outlined in the WHOIS Steering Committee's draft terms of reference for "Task Force 2") should be a priority for the GNSO's policy making, and we formally request that the GNSO perform such a review at the earliest opportunity. The ALAC stands ready to participate and assist with this effort. Establishing effective protections for registrants' privacy becomes crucial as some constituencies are suggesting even stricter assurances for the accuracy of WHOIS data, thereby further reducing the practical privacy loopholes that might still be available to registrants. Kind regards, Vittorio Bertola (Chair, ALAC.)

2 1

Re: [registrars] WHOIS Area 2 terms of reference (data collection and display)
by Amadeu Abril i Abril Oct. 27, 2003

Oct. 27, 2003

En/na Bruce Tonkin ha escrit: > For review by the GNSO Council in Carthage. > > Title: Review of data collected and displayed > > Participants: > - 1 representative from each constituency > - ALAC liaison > - GAC liaison > - ccNSO liaison > - SECSAC liaison > - liaisons from other GNSO WHOIS task forces Bruce and fellow GNSO Council members. I think I will propose a small amendment to the proposed terms of reference. The PDP establishes a TF composition based on consituency representation. But not only constituency representation... The fact is that I would personally like being considered for this concrete TJ. No, I will never pretend that NomCom-appointed members are a ort of new Constituency and should have representation everywhere. It's certainly not the case. But this does not necessirily rule out our participation in selected TFs when apprpriate. The PDP provides for up to three seats for "experts". Well, I don't claim to be an expert on this or anything else, but I submit my application to you for this concrete TF, and propose that we use these spots from time to time to have Demi, Alick or me in certain TFs if we wish to volunteer and the Council sees merit in our participation there. Amadeu, refraining from making a motion to outlaw for ever and ever meetings before 8:30am ;-))

1 0

GNSO Council teleconference 16/17 October - draft minutes
by GNSO SECRETARIAT Oct. 23, 2003

Oct. 23, 2003

[To:council@gnso.icann.org] Dear Council members, Please find the draft minutes of the GNSO Council teleconference held on16/17 October. http://gnso.icann.org/meetings/minutes-gnso-16oct03.shtml (text version below) If you have any changes that you would like made, please inform me. Thank you, Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat GNSO Council teleconference October 16/17 Draft Minutes 19 October 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/Philip Sheppard Greg Ruth - ISCPC Antonio Harris - ISCPC Tony Holmes - ISCPC Thomas Keller- Registrars Ken Stubbs - Registrars Bruce Tonkin - Registrars Jeff Neuman - gTLD Jordyn Buchanan - gTLD Cary Karp - gTLD - absent, apologies, proxy to Jeff Neuman Ellen Shankman - Intellectual Property Interests C. - absent, apologies, proxy to Philip Sheppard Laurence Djolakian - Intellectual Property Interests C. - absent, apologies, proxy to Philip Sheppard Lynda Roesch - Intellectual Property Interests C. - absent, apologies, proxy to Philip Sheppard Milton Mueller - Non Commercial users C. Chun Eung Hwi - Non Commercial users C. Gabriel Pineiro - Non Commercial users C. - absent, apologies, proxy to Chun Eung Hwi Alick Wilson Demi Getschko Amadeu Abril I Abril 15 Council Members Paul Twomey - ICANN President John Jeffrey - ICANN General Counsel Audri Mukhopadhyay - GAC Liaison Thomas Roessler- ALAC Liaison Young Eum Lee - ccTLD Liaison Glen de Saint Géry - GNSO Secretariat Quorum present at 23:07 CET MP3 recording Bruce Tonkin chaired this teleconference. Discussion on meeting with Government Advisory Committee (GAC) and GNSO Council members, proposed to be held on Sunday 26 October in Carthage at 19:00 (7:00 pm) Item 1: Approval of the Agenda Bruce Tonkin summarized: requested in put from Paul Twomey, ICANN President, on the request for a policy development process in the area of Registry Services address the motion before the GNSO Council "The GNSO Council requests that the Staff Manager produce an Issues Report, consistent with Article 1: Mission and Core Values of ICANN's bylaws, on the need for a predictable procedure for the introduction of new Registry Services (as defined in the gtld registry agreements)" If the motion passes, discussion of issues that should be included in the Issues report to be issued by the ICANN Staff. Agenda items for Carthage meeting Paul Twomey, ICANN President stated that he had drafted a letter to the GNSO Council Chair, Bruce Tonkin, which was read by John Jeffrey, formally requesting the GNSO Council to commence a GNSO policy development process designed to produce recommendations to the Board. http://www.icann.org/correspondence/twomey-to-tonkin-20oct03.pdf Paul Twomey commented that the letter was intended to give input to guiding issues that came out of the ICANN mission. The President's request was directed at the dialogue that takes place between the Registries and the ICANN staff function under the Registry Agreement. It was not aimed at the establishment of an ongoing process of policy making. At the core structure of the Registry agreement, it was important to note that on behalf of the decision making process, registry service by registry service, whereby an independent third party makes the decision, the ICANN staff and the ICANN Board do not consist of parties that would be competitors with the Registry. Important issues have emerged around competition such as how does a Registry introduce a service in a true market environment when confidentiality may be important for their business needs. Expert advice is needed on how to achieve the processes of confidentiality. The rationale as a whole for the President's request for a policy development process arises from dialogues the President has had since his installation with the Registries and was thus on the agenda before the Verisign Sitefinder incident. It is an attempt to outline ICANN concerns and a process in moving forward, rather than preserving a static format of what Registries should do. Milton Mueller asked whether the intention was for the GNSO to give advice on how to do an advanced process. Paul Twomey replied that the intent was to address what steps a Registry would be required to follow to ensure that a service could be introduced and was consistent with the outline in the letter. Milton Mueller went on to ask what justification there was for the rapid process and the priority it received, other than the Sitefinder service. Paul Twomey responded that Sitefinder and other recent registry services in .name required amendments to the Registry service agreements which had affects on people running businesses. Amadeu Abril l Abril asked whether the Staff Manager was indeed available to draw up an Issues Report to which Paul Twomey replied that staff resources were available. Concern was expressed about the consequences if the policy development process was not completed in the 90 day policy development process timeframe. Paul Twomey stated that the process would affect future services. Jeff Neuman mentioned that the letter was structured to address all TLD services while it should be for unsponsored tld services only. Paul Twomey stated that the definitions in the registry contracts were the key factors. Discussion on the motion from Bruce Tonkin, the GNSO Chair and seconded by Marilyn Cade: "The GNSO Council requests that the Staff Manager produce an Issues Report, consistent with Article 1: Mission and Core Values of ICANN's bylaws, on the need for a predictable procedure for the introduction of new Registry Services (as defined in the gtld registry agreements)" Jordyn Buchanan stated that there was not enough precision in registry agreements to make it possible for ICANN to preserve stability and security of the Internet. Contracts should be rethought in terms of registry interaction with ICANN. Bruce Tonkin clarified the process: The GNSO Council was commissioning an Issues Report The GNSO Council would meet to determine whether the policy development process would be appropriate The terms of reference would be well specified before starting the task force. Milton Mueller proposed adding the following amendment: The Issues Report should consider the advantages and disadvantages of reviewing new registry services ex post or ex ante; whether rules should be different for dominant and non-dominant players; and who would make the initial determination of whether a new service qualified as a registry service. Bruce Tonkin suggested separating the two matters and proposed that the amendment should be taken up in the Issues report. Milton Mueller expressed further concern about ICANN as a regulator and stated that regulation by contract was preferable to centralized regulation. The motion passed with 18 votes in favour, the gTLD Registries constituency and the Non-commercial Users constituency abstained. Decision 1: The GNSO Council requests that the Staff Manager produce an Issues Report, consistent with Article 1: Mission and Core Values of ICANN's bylaws, on the need for a predictable procedure for the introduction of new Registry Services (as defined in the gtld registry agreements) The ICANN President was asked whether a public comment would be appropriate to assist in collecting data for the Issues Report to which he replied that council members and experts from other services would be more suitable to provide information. Paul Twomey excused himself and left the meeting. Bruce Tonkin called for suggestions on issues to be raised in the Issues Report: Milton Mueller suggested the following: The Issues Report should consider the advantages and disadvantages of reviewing new registry services ex post or ex ante; whether better focus of the gTLD contracts on technical and stability is a better way to address the problems; whether rules should be different for dominant and non-dominant players; and who would make the initial determination of whether a new service qualified as a registry service. Ken Stubbs stated that a reasonable time was required for accelerated consultation in the constituencies for input on issues to be raised in the Staff Managers report. The suggested return date for the input to be sent to the GNSO Council list: Monday 20 or Tuesday 21 October. Jeff Neuman added that the input to the issues report should be before the Councillors' terms end in Carthage. The question should be examined: What rights did ICANN have in the agreement in the interruption of Registry services. Bruce Tonkin proposed the following schedule: GNSO Council members should have the opportunity to read through the ICANN President's letter. GNSO Council members and liaisons should contribute suggestions, individual submissions, that could be gathered and incorporated in the Staff Manager's report. Timing for the Staff Manager's Report, 15 days which brings the date to October 31. Action: Bruce Tonkin proposed talking to Paul Twomey and John Jeffrey about the consultation and input that Council members would like from their constituencies. Item 2: Any Other Business 1. Proposed Meetings in Carthage: Bruce Tonkin proposed that constituencies discuss possible issues for the Staff Manager's report. Marilyn Cade reported on an open informational meeting on Monday afternoon, October 27, 2003 Discussion topics: - Briefing on Wildcards - Tutorial on Domain Name System (DNS ) Clarification on Cross Constituency meeting. Commercial and Business Users, Intellectual Property Interests, and Internet Service and Connectivity Providers Constituencies meet together often with invited guests from the At Large Advisory Committee and the ccNSO and other groups. 2. Agenda Topics for Carthage: - UDRP - WHOIS Steering group terms of reference for task forces Marilyn Cade requested information on the status of the GNSO Council request: arising from the GNSO Council meeting on August 14, 2003 where a decision was taken to: - Formally submit the motion as a request for an amendment to the Bylaws: And therefore the GNSO Council requests the Board to make two changes in its review timetable: 1. To change the transition article to allow three representatives per constituency on the GNSO Council until the end of the ICANN annual meeting 2004; 2. To perform a review of the GNSO council in or around June 2004 which should include among other aspects of the review criteria, an analysis of the efficacy of having three representatives from each constituency on the GNSO Council. - GNSO Chair, Bruce Tonkin to liaise with ICANN President, Paul Twomey on joint ICANN Board teleconference on the topic. Bruce Tonkin proposed sending a formal request to the Board enquiring on the status of allowing 3 representatives per constituency. 3. Status of Elections in the Constituencies 1. gTLD Registries Constituency: 2 Representatives elected: Cary Karp elected for a 2 year term, Ken Stubbs elected for a 1 year term. 2. Commercial and Business Users Constituency (CBUC): 3 Representatives elected: Philip Sheppard, Marilyn Cade, Grant Forsyth. 3. Non-Commercial Users Constituency (NCUC): Election due to start on 20 October and finish on 31 October 2003. 4. Internet Service and Connectivity Providers Constituency : Elections have not commenced, planned for after Carthage. 5. Registrars Constituency: Election has been held and the results were being finalised 6. Intellectual Property Interests Constituency: No representative present to report Jeff Neuman asked whether the constituencies had elected two or three representatives? The Non-Commercial Users Constituency planned to elect two and have another election if a third representative was needed. The Commercial and Business Users Constituency had elected three. Marilyn Cade proposed forming a committee of the present councillors that could focus on the specific Registry Service issue in order to meet the necessary timelines in the policy development process. Bruce Tonkin declared GNSO teleconference closed, and thanked everybody for attending. The meeting ended: 00:45 CET, 22:45 UTC, 08:45, 17 October, Melbourne. Next GNSO Council meeting to be held at the Carthage Palace Hotel in historic Carthage, Tunisia. : Wednesday October 29, 2003 at 14:00 local time, 13:00 UTC see:http://www.gnso.icann.org/calendar/

1 0

GNSO website redesign
by GNSO SECRETARIAT Oct. 23, 2003

Oct. 23, 2003

[To: council(a)gnso.icann.org] As part of an ongoing commitment to improve transparency and to make the GNSO website more usable, accessible and attractive to its users, a review of the website is planned. Recommendations from GNSO Council members and liaisons would be most welcome. The ICANN webmaster, Terri Irving has been invited to attend the GNSO Council informal breakfast meeting and would be pleased to receive any comments in this connection and may also be contacted at the booth in the Carthage Palace Hotel. http://www.icann.org/carthage/website-booth.htm Thank you, GNSO Secretariat

1 0

WHOIS Area 2 terms of reference (data collection and display)
by Bruce Tonkin Oct. 23, 2003

Oct. 23, 2003

Title: Review of data collected and displayed Participants: - 1 representative from each constituency - ALAC liaison - GAC liaison - ccNSO liaison - SECSAC liaison - liaisons from other GNSO WHOIS task forces Description of Task Force: ========================== There are domain name holders that are concerned about their privacy, both in terms of data that is collected and held about them, and also in terms of what data is made available to other parties. In this regard it should be mentioned that there already is existing local law in several jurisdictions regulating this matter. At the same time, domain names, associated email addresses, and web sites located by domain names can be used in connection with fraud, criminal activity, and intellectual property infringement. This gives rise to a need for accurate identification of the registrant, and/or a need to reliably contact the individual or organization that is the registered name holder. Many users of Whois perceive that there is an unacceptable level of inaccuracy in Whois data that compromises its ability to facilitate identifying and contacting registrants. Similar trade-offs between privacy concerns and identification affect the technical functions of Whois. Extensive contact information can assist a registrar or network provider to contact a domain name holder in the event of a technical problem or in the event of domain name expiration. However, a domain name holder may be prepared to make a personal decision to accept a lower standard of service (e.g take their own steps to be reminded of when a domain expires) in return for greater privacy. A domain name holder may be prepared to provide extensive contact information to their domain name provider, but would prefer to control what information is available for public access. Identifiers in other media typically attempt to balance identification and privacy concerns. For example a telephone customer may provide detailed address information to a telephone service provider, but may elect not to have this information displayed in a public whitepages directory. Note however that national laws often permit access to the complete information to groups such as law enforcement and emergency services personnel. Similarly, the ability of persons to opt out of public disclosure of some data may be limited. Although the GNSO has in the past adopted new policies (See http://www.icann.org/gnso/whois-tf/report-19feb03.htm) regarding the accuracy of data and bulk access, the prior Task Force chose to defer considerations of privacy to a future point. Another issue is that there is limited public understanding of the present contractual obligations, including the obligations to disclose to those who provide data the uses to which it will be put, and to obtain their consent. Most domain name holders are probably unaware that their information is being displayed publicly via the present port-43 and interactive web access methods, or is made available to third parties under the bulk WHOIS access agreement. The purpose of this task force is to determine: a) What is the best way to inform registrants of what information about themselves is made publicly available when they register a domain name and what options they have to restrict access to that data and receive notification of its use? b) What changes, if any, should be made in the data elements about registrants that must be collected at the time of registration to achieve an acceptable balance between the interests of those seeking contact-ability, and those seeking privacy protection? c) Should domain name holders be allowed to remove certain parts of the required contact information from anonymous (public) access, and if so, what data elements can be withdrawn from public access, by which registrants, and what contractual changes (if any) are required to enable this? Should registrars be required to notify domain name holders when the withheld data is released to third parties? If registrants have the ability to withhold data from public, anonymous access will this increase user incentives to keep the contact information they supply current and accurate. To ensure that the task force remains focussed and that its goal is achievable and within a reasonable time frame, it is necessary to be clear on what is out of scope for the task force. Out-of-scope ============ The task force should not examine the mechanisms available for anonymous public access of the data - this is the subject of a separate task force. The task force should not examine mechanisms for law enforcement access to the data collected. This is generally subject to varying local laws, and may be the subject of a future task force. The task force should not study new methods or policies for ensuring the accuracy of the required data, as this will be subject of a separate task force. The task force should not consider issues regarding registrars' ability to use Whois data for their own marketing purposes, or their claims of proprietary rights to customers' personal data. Tasks/Milestones ================ This Task Force would begin at the same time as the other one and execute its duties in the following order: 1. Examine the current methods by which registrars and their resellers inform registrants of the purpose for which contact data is collected, and how that data will be released to the public. Examine whether policy changes (or published guidelines) are necessary to improve how this information is provided to registrants. 2. Conduct an analysis of the existing uses of the registrant data elements currently captured as part of the domain name registration process. Develop a list of data elements about registrants and their domains that must be collected at the time of registration to achieve an acceptable balance between the interests of those seeking contact-ability, and those seeking privacy protection. The intent is to determine whether all of the data elements now collected are necessary for current and foreseeable needs of the community, determine which elements can be acquired accurately at low cost, whether any of the current elements should be made voluntary, whether any different elements should be added or substituted to improve the balance between contact-ability and privacy, and how the data may be acquired in compliance with applicable privacy, security, and stability considerations. 3. Document existing methods by which registrants can maintain anonymity and assess their adequacy. Document examples of existing local privacy laws in regard to display/transmittal of data. Decide what options if any will be given to registrants to remove data elements from public access and what contractual changes (if any) are required to enable this. 4. Taking into account the outcomes in 2 and 3, re-examine the methods by which registrars inform registrants of the use of their contact data by third parties and the options registrants might have to remove data elements from public view.

1 0