May 2005 - council - lists.icann.org

GNSO Council Teleconf. 12 May 2005, MP3 recording
by GNSO.SECRETARIAT＠GNSO.ICANN.ORG May 12, 2005

May 12, 2005

[To: ga[at]gnso.icann.org; announce[at]gnso.icann.org] [To: liaison6c[at]gnso.icann.org; council[at]gnso.icann.org] Please find the MP3 recording of the GNSO Council teleconference, held on May 12, 2005 at: http://gnso-audio.icann.org/GNSO-Council-20050512.mp3 Happy listening! -- Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat - ICANN gnso.secretariat[at]gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

Forwarding from Jordyn Buchanan - relating to new terms of reference
by Bruce Tonkin May 12, 2005

May 12, 2005

________________________________ From: Jordyn A. Buchanan [mailto:jordyn@confusion.net] Sent: Thursday, 12 May 2005 9:50 PM To: Bruce Tonkin Cc: Glen De Saint Géry Subject: Fwd: [gnso-dow123] Recommendations relating to new terms of reference Hi Bruce: Just wanted to flag these issues for consideration in the council's discussion today. There hasn't been any feedback on the list, so I wouldn't necessarily characterize them as task force positions yet, but at the very least it's some feedback from the TF chair. It would be difficult to know how to handle some of our existing work items without some explicit feedback from the Council. Jordyn Begin forwarded message: From: "Jordyn A. Buchanan" <jordyn(a)confusion.net> Date: May 11, 2005 1:02:14 PM EDT To: Whois TF mailing list <gnso-dow123(a)gnso.icann.org> Subject: [gnso-dow123] Recommendations relating to new terms of reference As we discussed yesterday, I've drafted some comments from the TF to the council to consider in deciding on new terms of reference. Hopefully these are fairly un-controversial. Please let me know if you have any feedback: (1) The task force requests that the council clearly specify whether the terms of reference are considered to be a new set of terms of reference or merely modifications to the existing terms of reference. The task force also requests that the council specify whether the intent is to apply the terms of reference to a new task force, or is rechartering the existing task force. (2) The task force requests that the council clearly indicate whether policy development should continue in each of the areas in which the task force currently has work items. In the event that the council directs the task force not to continue to develop policy in one or more areas, we request that the council make appropriate provisions to conclude work and make necessary factual reports to council. The third area we discussed, incorporating a reference to the transfers task force definition of contact roles, has already been incorporated in Bruce's latest draft. Jordyn

1 0

FW: NCUC edits to ToR for GNSO tele-mtg on 12th
by Bruce Tonkin May 12, 2005

May 12, 2005

-----Original Message----- From: Robin Gross [mailto:robin@ipjustice.org] Sent: Thursday, 12 May 2005 11:42 AM To: Bruce Tonkin Subject: NCUC edits to ToR for GNSO tele-mtg on 12th Hello Bruce, Besides the overbroad purpose being assigned to whois, NCUC is very concerned about the lack of attention given to the privacy and freedom of expression issues in the current proposal for the whois Terms of Reference. Therefore, NCUC would like to submit the attached edits to this ToR for discussion at the GNSO council meeting on the 12th. Would you please forward the attached proposed edits to the council? Also attached as part of the submission is a report of Task Force 2 that lays various national and international privacy problems for the whois policy. Please let me know if you have any questions or if I can provide any additional information on this. Thank you, Robin Gross NCUC

1 0

Second Draft WHOIS terms of reference
by Bruce Tonkin May 12, 2005

May 12, 2005

Hello All, I have added the reference to the definitions of contacts in Exhibit C of the Transfers Report as suggested by Ross Rader. Regards, Bruce Tonkin Second Draft of Terms of Reference for WHOIS task force ICANN's mission is to maintain the stability and security of the Internet's unique identifier systems, while fostering competition where appropriate to give Internet users greater choice at optimal cost. Within the context of this mission, ICANN has agreements with gtld registrars and gtld registries that require the provision of a WHOIS service via three mechanisms: port-43, web based access, and bulk access. The purpose of the WHOIS service as contained in the Registrar Accreditation Agreement (RAA) is to provide accurate technical and administrative contact information adequate to facilitate timely resolution of any problems that arise in connection with the Registered Name. A registrar is also required in the RAA to take reasonable precautions to protect Personal Data from loss, misuse, unauthorized access or disclosure, alteration, or destruction. The goal of the WHOIS task force is to improve the effectiveness of the WHOIS service in maintaining the stability and security of the Internet's unique identifier systems, whilst taking into account where appropriate the need to ensure privacy protection for the Personal Data of individuals that may be Registered Name Holders, or the administrative or technical contact for a domain name. Tasks: (1) Review the current purpose of WHOIS, and determine whether it should be refined in the context of ICANN's mission and the changing nature of Registered Name Holders. "The purpose of WHOIS is to provide accurate technical and administrative contact information adequate to facilitate timely resolution of any problems that arise in connection with the Registered Name" (2) Define the purpose of the technical and administrative contacts, in the context of the purpose of WHOIS, to improve the accuracy and relevance of the data collected. Use the definitions from Exhibit C of the Transfers Task force report as a starting point (from http://www.icann.org/gnso/transfers-tf/report-exhc-12feb03.htm) "Contact: Contacts are individuals or entities associated with domain name records. Typically, third parties with specific inquiries or concerns will use contact records to determine who should act upon specific issues related to a domain name record. There are typically three of these contact types associated with a domain name record, the Administrative contact, the Billing contact and the Technical contact. Contact, Administrative: The administrative contact is an individual, role or organization authorized to interact with the Registry or Registrar on behalf of the Domain Holder. The administrative contact should be able to answer non-technical questions about the domain name's registration and the Domain Holder. In all cases, the Administrative Contact is viewed as the authoritative point of contact for the domain name, second only to the Domain Holder. Contact, Billing: The billing contact is the individual, role or organization designated to receive the invoice for domain name registration and re-registration fees. Contact, Technical: The technical contact is the individual, role or organization that is responsible for the technical operations of the delegated zone. This contact likely maintains the domain name server(s) for the domain. The technical contact should be able to answer technical questions about the domain name, the delegated zone and work with technically oriented people in other zones to solve technical problems that affect the domain name and/or zone." (3) Determine what WHOIS data elements should be available for public access that are needed to maintain the stability and security of the Internet. Determine how to access data that is not available for public access. The current elements that must be displayed by a registrar are: - The name of the Registered Name; - The names of the primary nameserver and secondary nameserver(s) for the Registered Name; - The identity of Registrar (which may be provided through Registrar's website); - The original creation date of the registration; - The expiration date of the registration; - The name and postal address of the Registered Name Holder; - The name, postal address, e-mail address, voice telephone number, and (where available) fax number of the technical contact for the Registered Name; and - The name, postal address, e-mail address, voice telephone number, and (where available) fax number of the administrative contact for the Registered Name. (4) Determine how to improve the process for notifying a registrar of inaccurate WHOIS data, and the process for investigating and correcting inaccurate data. Currently a registrar "shall, upon notification by any person of an inaccuracy in the contact information associated with a Registered Name sponsored by Registrar, take reasonable steps to investigate that claimed inaccuracy. In the event Registrar learns of inaccurate contact information associated with a Registered Name it sponsors, it shall take reasonable steps to correct that inaccuracy."

2 1

RE: [council] Draft WHOIS terms of reference
by Bruce Tonkin May 12, 2005

May 12, 2005

Hello Robin, > > Where can I find > this purpose defined as such in the RAA? > It is extracted from clause 3.7.7.3 of the Registrars Accreditation Agreement (RAA) available at: http://www.icann.org/registrars/ra-agreement-17may01.htm Regards, Bruce Tonkin

2 1

GNSO Council meeting - 2 items for information
by Maria Farrell May 11, 2005

May 11, 2005

Dear Council members, Ahead of tomorrow's GNSO Council conference call, I am sending you two items: a table outlining the recommendations made by the GNSO Council independent review and the Council's self-review. This summarises the two sets of recommendations, batching them according to subject, and also includes staff responses and suggestions. It is a work in progress and may be useful for Council members to organise the work items arising. Secondly, below is a short list of current GNSO-related issues being worked on by ICANN staff to help you prioritise current and future work items. Best regards, Maria Farrell List of GNSO-related issues ICANN staff is currently working on (11 May 2005) Policy development staff: * WHOIS (PDP of recommendation on notification, support of combined WHOIS Task Force) * New registry services * GNSO independent review and self-review (preparation for discussion & implementation of recommendations) * New gTLDs Operations staff: * New registry services * New gTLDs * Transfers * Internationalised Domain Names * ICANN Strategic and Operational plans

1 0

Dot net
by Philip Sheppard May 11, 2005

May 11, 2005

Council, for possible discussion under AOB at the Council meeting May 12. Please note I have just posted this comment to the dot.net public comments web site. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------- Background I previously posted to ICANN .net public comments, concern about the dissonance in the Telcordia methodology and the GNSO .net report and its recommendation. The GNSO report stated that the number one relative criteria was "Relative Criteria related to promotion of competition." The conclusion of my previous posting was that the methodology of the evaluator's report directly contradicts the essence of the GNSO report. At the Mar del Plata ICANN meeting, there were several questions made by members of the ICANN community, regarding the Telecordia report. Telcordia was asked to respond to the questions raised by the other bidders, and has done so. I fear that the response still misses the essential point. The criteria Telcordia used provided no measure of value of one applicant over another dependent on their current market position in the REGISTRY market - the very market in which the GNSO council was seeking to competitively enhance. Instead, all the measures looked at how the REGISTRAR market might be competitively enhanced. While it was left to Telcordia to design the evaluation criteria, these criteria were signed off by ICANN. The ICANN Board has the responsibility to ensure, as part of their responsibility to maintain the stability and security of the Internet's identifier systems, that an underlying competitive environment is enhanced. It is now up to the ICANN Board to mitigate the negative impact of an award with respect to competitiveness at the Registry level. Proposal Should the ICANN Board decide to award .net to the incumbent, they do so in the knowledge that this sanctions a circa 84% market share in the Registry market. Such an award should only be made based on a set of conditions to mitigate any potential undesirable effects of undue market dominance. Conditions that should be considered include the following: 1. Divestment of all minority interests in all other Registries within say 1 year. 2. Divestment of all interests in all Registrars within say 1 year. 3. A re-bid for .net every 6 years. Philip Sheppard

2 1

RE: [council] Draft WHOIS terms of reference
by Niklas_Lagergren＠mpaa.org May 11, 2005

May 11, 2005

For ease of reference, you will find below a cut & paste of clause 3.7.7.3 that Bruce is mentioning: "3.7.7.3 Any Registered Name Holder that intends to license use of a domain name to a third party is nonetheless the Registered Name Holder of record and is responsible for providing its own full contact information and for providing and updating accurate technical and administrative contact information adequate to facilitate timely resolution of any problems that arise in connection with the Registered Name. A Registered Name Holder licensing use of a Registered Name according to this provision shall accept liability for harm caused by wrongful use of the Registered Name, unless it promptly discloses the identity of the licensee to a party providing the Registered Name Holder reasonable evidence of actionable harm." -----Original Message----- From: Bruce Tonkin [mailto:Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au] Sent: mercredi 11 mai 2005 11:39 To: council(a)gnso.icann.org Subject: RE: [council] Draft WHOIS terms of reference Hello Robin, > > Where can I find > this purpose defined as such in the RAA? > It is extracted from clause 3.7.7.3 of the Registrars Accreditation Agreement (RAA) available at: http://www.icann.org/registrars/ra-agreement-17may01.htm Regards, Bruce Tonkin

1 0

Whois Public comments close on Thursday 12 May 2005
by GNSO.SECRETARIAT＠GNSO.ICANN.ORG May 10, 2005

May 10, 2005

[To:council[at]gnso.icann.org; ga[at]gnso.icann.org] [To:announce[at]gnso.icann.org;liaison6c[at]gnso.icann.org] REMINDER The Combined Whois task force Preliminary report - Public comment forum closes on Thursday 12 May, 2005. The report can be viewed at: http://gnso.icann.org/issues/whois/whois-tf123-final-rpt-22apr05.shtml Comments should be sent to: gnso-whois-tf-rpt(a)icann.org. Archives are available at: http://forum.icann.org/lists/gnso-whois-tf-rpt. Thank you in advance for taking the time to comment. Kind regards, -- Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat - ICANN gnso.secretariat[at]gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org

3 2

Current GNSO work items
by GNSO.SECRETARIAT＠GNSO.ICANN.ORG May 10, 2005

May 10, 2005

[To: council[at]gnso.icann.org] (sent on behalf of Maria Farrell) Dear Council members, Please find attached for discussion/information on this week's GNSO Council meeting: * a list of current and future work items of the GNSO Best regards, Maria Farrell -- Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat - ICANN gnso.secretariat[at]gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org

1 0