September 2003 - council - lists.icann.org

Re: [council] Declaration of conflict of interest regarding agenda item 4
by Milton Mueller Sept. 25, 2003

Sept. 25, 2003

Thanks for your exemplary approach to disclosure. --MM >>> "Bruce Tonkin" <Bruce.Tonkin(a)melbourneit.com.au> 09/24/03 07:57PM >>> I would like to declare the following potential conflicts of interest. I am an employee of Melbourne IT.

1 0

Role of council with respect to Agenda Item 4
by Bruce Tonkin Sept. 25, 2003

Sept. 25, 2003

Hello All, I would just like to remind the Council that GNSO is "responsible for developing and recommending to the ICANN Board substantive policies relating to generic top-level domains" (taken from the ICANN bylaws, Article X, section 1) In discussed agenda item 4, it is not the GNSO's role to make a decision with respect to whether the Verisign service complies with the existing contracts or policy. That is a role for the ICANN staff with advice from the ICANN General Counsel. It is also not the GNSO's role to make decisions with respect to whether it affects the security and stability of the Internet - that is the role of the Security and Stability Advisory Committee. Given advice from the ICANN General Counsel as to whether the issue is covered by the existing contracts, and given the advice from the Security and Stability Advisory Committee, the GNSO should consider whether the issue being discussed in agenda item 4 highlights a "need" for additional policy. The possible areas of additional policy include: - developing a policy for the introduction of new registry services (e.g relating to what circumstance is approval required from ICANN, and what sort of notice periods should be required) - developing a policy around the introduction of wildcard entries to gtlds (note .museum already has a wildcard entry as part of their agreement with ICANN) My recommendation for agenda item 4 is that we keep the discussion focused on the issues for which the GNSO is responsible for, and also consider whether we need to formally support the actions already taken by ICANN and the Security and Stability Committee. I believe in the past we have taken this approach with respect to the ccNSO, where we have supported the creation of a ccNSO and the recent decisions made by ICANN with respect to the ccNSO. If we believe there is a need for new policy, then we should consider formally commencing the policy development process at the next GNSO Council meeting. The GNSO should primarily be focussed on how to avoid problems in the future. Regards, Bruce Tonkin

1 0

Declaration of conflict of interest regarding agenda item 4
by Bruce Tonkin Sept. 24, 2003

Sept. 24, 2003

Hello All, Agenda item 4 of the GNSO Council meeting relates to a discussion of Verisign's introduction of wildcard entries into the .com and .net zones. I would like to declare the following potential conflicts of interest. I am an employee of Melbourne IT. Melbourne IT is a customer of Verisign, and Melbourne IT has directly communicated with Verisign over this issue. Melbourne IT is a supplier to Microsoft of domain name services. Microsoft currently benefits from a feature in their browsers that can direct users to a MSN search page when a domain name is not found in the DNS. In some cases users may be offered the chance to register domain names. Melbourne IT has not been approached by Microsoft to advocate any position on this matter, and I have seen no public response from Microsoft on this matter. Melbourne IT is a supplier to Yahoo of domain name services. It has been reported that Yahoo has an interest in that it is in the process of acquiring Overture (which manages paid/sponsored search listings), and owns Inktomi (which provides search listing for the Verisign service). I don't know how this may affect Melbourne IT with respect to domain name services. Melbourne IT has not been approached by Yahoo to advocate any position on this matter, and I have seen no public response from Yahoo on this matter. While I believe that my views are independent of any of the potential conflicts of interests above and that I act in the best interests of ICANN whilst acting in my capacity as chair of the GNSO, I want to ensure that I am not seen to bias any discussion on this topic as chair of the GNSO. As has been my practice in the past on issues where I have a potential conflict of interest, I have asked Philip Sheppard as the immediate past chair of the Names Council, to chair the discussion on agenda item 4. I have also invited the ICANN General Counsel (John Jeffrey), the Chair of the Security and Stability Advisory Committee (Steve Crocker), and a representative from Verisign (Chuck Gomes) to be available to answer any questions of a factual nature. Regards, Bruce Tonkin

1 0

NCUC top 5 UDRP issues
by Milton Mueller Sept. 24, 2003

Sept. 24, 2003

This list was published and discussed on our constituency list but there was no formal vote. --MM (4) Should the provider and panel selection processes be modified to address concerns about potential conflicts of interest? [This would include the problem of complainant selection of providers, panel selection bias by providers, etc. ] (5) Should standards for accrediting providers and panelists be promulgated? [there should be some way to de-accredit biased providers and panelists] (8) Should the notice requirements be amended? [Some feel that the notice requirements are too short. ] (10) Should administrative panel decisions be subject to internal appellate review? [whether you agree or disagree with the appeal option, it seems to be a high priority issue that needs to be resolved.] (17) Should complainants be required to post a bond and/or pay a penalty in order to deter "reverse domain-name hijacking"? [there should be some deterrent to RDNH]

2 1

Proposed ToR for Task Force 2
by Milton Mueller Sept. 24, 2003

Sept. 24, 2003

I have made some modifications and additions to Bruce's original draft, keeping within its spirit but narrowing the focus and adding milestones. 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. 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. 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. Another issue is that there is limited public understanding of the present contractual obligations. Most domain name holders are unaware that their information is being displayed publically via the present port-43 and interactive web access methods. The purpose of this task force is to determine: a) What is the minimum required information about registrants that must be collected at the time of registration to maintain adequate contact-ability? b) 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 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? c) 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? 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. However, it should study whether giving registrants the ability to withhold data from public, anonymous access will increase user incentives to keep the contact information they supply current and accurate. 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. Conduct an analysis of the existing uses of the registrant data elements currently captured as part of the domain name registration process. Develop list of minimal required elements for contact-ability. The intent is to determine whether all of the data elements now collected are necessary for current and foreseeable needs of the community, and if so, how they may be acquired with the greatest accuracy, least cost, and in compliance with applicable privacy, security, and stability considerations. 4-5 months? 2. Decide what options will be given to registrants to remove data elements from public access and what contractual changes (if any) are required to enable this. 3 months? 3. 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 months?

1 0

Teleconference of Tomorrow Thursday 09/25
by Antonio Harris Sept. 24, 2003

Sept. 24, 2003

I may be late in joining the teleconference tomorrow, courtesy of paperwork to recover my stolen and found car. Just in case, my proxy goes to Tony Holmes or Greg Ruth in that order. Regards Tony Harris

1 0

Please update address books: council@gnso.icann.org
by GNSO SECRETARIAT Sept. 24, 2003

Sept. 24, 2003

[To: council(a)gnso.icann.org; ga(a)gnso.icann.org] [To: announce(a)gnso.icann.org; liaison6c(a)gnso.icann.org] Please update your address books now! New addresses: council(a)gnso.icann.org, ga(a)gnso.icann.org, liaison(a)gnso.icann.org, announce(a)gnso.icann.org, gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org With the complete change over to http://www.gnso.icann.org please note, all former addresses: council(a)dnso.org, ga(a)dnso.org, liaison6c(a)dnso.org, announce(a)dnso.org have been changed to: council(a)gnso.icann.org, ga(a)gnso.icann.org, liaison(a)gnso.icann.org, announce(a)gnso.icann.org. The old addresses will continue to work for a few weeks more, but you should update your address books now. Thank you, GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org

1 0

BC priorities UDRP
by Philip Sheppard Sept. 24, 2003

Sept. 24, 2003

Business Constituency - UDRP priority issues for a new policy development process. It is not straightforward to choose just some out of a list of issues that are not comparable in scope/time. However, on balance discussion within the membership of the BC has led to the following list - which we have categorised according to the scope of the issue. What we are saying is that these issues should be discussed not necessarily that there should be change. Priority within this list should go to issue 9 and 15 - relevant to improving what we have. We are however open to proposals from other constituencies on different priorities or linked issues. 1. Improving the functioning of the present UDRP. (9) Should the procedure for implementing orders to transfer registrations be amended? 2. Changes which may help with consistency of the existing UDRP. (15) Should the policy address the question of whether "holding" constitutes "use"? 3. Administrative changes which are nice to have but which add cost. (1) Should there be improved centralized, searchable access to administrative panel decisions? (2) Should complainant and respondent filings be publicly available? 4. Significant policy changes. (3) Should complainants and respondents be allowed to amend and/or supplement their filings? (10) Should administrative panel decisions be subject to internal appellate review? (11) Should the policy be changed to require registrars to wait until appeal deadlines expire before taking action in response to court orders? Philip Sheppard on behalf of the BC

1 0

ALAC remarks on UDRP prioritization
by Thomas Roessler Sept. 23, 2003

Sept. 23, 2003

ALAC members have had some discussion on the staff manager's issues report on UDRP review. There is no clear consensus on the ALAC about what issues would be our "top five." Committee members were concerned about questions of transparency and accountability regarding UDRP decisions (issues 1, 2, 4, 5 are relevant to this); about internal appelate review and precedential effect (10, 19); and in particular about affirmative defenses (18), the interpretation of "holding vs. use" (15), and the interpretation of "confusing similarity" (13). It was observed that a centralized database of UDRP decisions (issue 1) would have most value if there is enforceable precedential value to earlier decisions. Issues 4 and 5 were considered to be so closely related that they should probably be dealt with together. There was also some criticism that the list of issues contained in the staff manager's report was not helpful for reaching any consensus on priorities: The issues differed widely in scope, some reaching to the core of the policy (definition of "confusing similarity" and holding vs. "use") or its operation (precedential value), others having a more limited nature (should decisions be put in a central repository, should complaints and responses be published, should providers be accredited). -- Thomas Roessler <roessler(a)does-not-exist.org> At-Large Advisory Committee: http://alac.info/

1 0

Important WHOIS decision in Australia
by Milton Mueller Sept. 23, 2003

Sept. 23, 2003

Tuesday, September 23, 2003 ASIC Fails To Get Full Access To Whois Data Mandy Bryan The Australian Securities and Investments Commission has failed in a bid to gain unfettered access to the Whois database of Australian website owners, in a policy review finalised yesterday. ASIC and other law enforcement agencies had argued during public consultation that they should be granted bulk access to the database. The consultation related to the annual review of policy surrounding the collection, use and disclosure of Whois data. Australia's domain name regulator, auDA, ruled in its updated policy yesterday that law enforcement agencies must request full data on a case-by-case basis during official investigations. "We do not believe that it is appropriate to compromise the integrity of the Whois database and privacy of registrants merely for the convenience of law enforcement officials," auDA's chief, Chris Dispain, said.

1 0