June 2005 - council - lists.icann.org

RE: [council] Annual report of the GNSO
by Marilyn Cade 26 Jun '05

26 Jun '05

1 0

RE: [gnso-dow123] Proposed consensus recommendation on improving notification to Registered Name Holders of the public access to contact data via the WHOIS service
by Marilyn Cade 26 Jun '05

26 Jun '05

1 0

Annual report of the GNSO
by Bruce Tonkin 26 Jun '05

26 Jun '05

Hello All, In December 2004, an independent review was published on the GNSO Council. This review contained several recommendations for improvements. One of the tasks in Luxembourg is to review these recommendations and check our progress against these recommendations. To improve our reporting to the wider community, I recommend that the GNSO produce an annual report in time for the ICANN Annual meeting (in Vancouver in Dec this year). This annual report should contain: - information on activities and achievements for the past year with respect to policy - information on process improvements undertaken since the review - reports from each of the constituencies of the GNSO The GNSO Council will be reviewed every 3 years, and a series of annual reports will assist in the review process. I would also like to see ICANN as a whole organisation produce an annual report, which would report on the performance of ICANN against its operating plan and strategic plan. Regards, Bruce Tonkin

1 0

MP 3 link of the GNSO Council teleconference 23 June not working
by GNSO.SECRETARIAT＠GNSO.ICANN.ORG 25 Jun '05

25 Jun '05

[To: ga[at]gnso.icann.org; announce[at]gnso.icann.org] [To: liaison6c[at]gnso.icann.org; council[at]gnso.icann.org] The MP3 link of the GNSO Council teleconference, held on June 23, 2005 is not working. Please forgive the inconvenience, it will be fixed as soon as possible. Thank you for your patience. -- Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat - ICANN gnso.secretariat[at]gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

Dr Liz Williams to act as Senior Policy Advisor providing advice to Olof Nordling
by Bruce Tonkin 25 Jun '05

25 Jun '05

-----Original Message----- From: Kurt Pritz [mailto:pritz@icann.org] Sent: Saturday, 25 June 2005 10:33 AM To: Bruce Tonkin; 'Chris Disspain'; hpholen(a)tiscali.no Subject: Liz Williams Announcement LIZ WILLIAMS ICANN is pleased to announce that Dr. Williams will be providing consultancy services in the area of policy development. In this regard, Dr. Williams will act as Senior Policy Advisor providing advice to Olof Nordling, Manager Policy Development Coordination. The Senior Advisory role is a full-time, temporary position intended to bridge the time necessary to hire and install the new Vice President, Policy Development Support who will be replacing Paul Verhoef. Due to the variety of duties associated with the new position and the transition, it is anticipated that Dr. Williams appointment will extend for nine to twelve months. Dr. Williams is expected to begin work on 1 July and attend the upcoming ICANN meeting in Luxembourg. Dr. Williams brings long term experience in the ICANN environment across the ccTLD, registry and registrar constituencies. She is a former .auDA Board Director and Deputy Chair of the Board and has worked in North America, the Mekong and in the South Pacific on internet governance and telecommunications issues. She specialises in developing regulatory structures, policy development and compliance and institutional strengthening. She has a doctorate in information technology and law on the globalisation of regulation and the domain name system and a masters in communication on regulating the Internet and privacy protection. Dr. Williams will work primarily from the ICANN office in Brussels. Please refer question to Kurt Pritz at the information below. Sincerely, Kurt Pritz ICANN 4676 Admiralty Way, #330 Marina del Rey, California USA +1.310.301.5809 (office) +1.310.400.4184 (mobile)

2 1

Call for participation in working group to review 3 month report on transfers policy and define the work items for the 6 month report
by Bruce Tonkin 25 Jun '05

25 Jun '05

Hello All, As reported in the minutes of the Council meeting on 12 May 2005. The Council decided form a working group with a representative group of volunteers from the GNSO to review the staff Transfers report in order to seek clarification, further information and provide guidance for the 6 month review and to report back to the Council. This is a call for volunteers that wish to participate and work with the ICANN staff. Ross Rader has volunteered to act as chair of this working group. See below for a description of the working group task. GNSO Council members should forward the names of volunteers to the GNSO Secretariat within 7 days, and the GNSO Secretariat will then arrange a time for a teleconference with the working group and ICANN staff. The aim should be to report to the Council at the GNSO Council meeting in Luxembourg. The GNSO Council will then use the report as a basis to request the staff to carry out specific tasks necessary to produce the 6 month report. Regards, Bruce Tonkin I Background ============ Recommendation 28 of the Consensus Policy on Transfers: (http://www.icann.org/gnso/transfers-tf/report-12feb03.htm ) states: (I have replaced references to the DNSO and Names Council with the new terms) "That the implementation and execution of these recommendations be monitored by the GNSO. Specifically that; a. ICANN Staff analyse and report to the GNSO Council at three, six and twelve month intervals after implementation with the goal of determining; i. How effectively and to what extent the policies have been implemented and adopted by Registrars, Registries and Registrants, ii. Whether or not modifications to these policies should be considered by the GNSO as a result of the experiences gained during the implementation and monitoring stages, iii. The effectiveness of the dispute resolution processes and a summary of the filings that have been resolved through the process. b. Pursuant to which, the GNSO Council may instruct the staff to; i. Continue bi-annual reviews in a manner consistent with the aforementioned requirements, or; ii. Report again to the GNSO Council in an additional twelve month time frame. c. The purpose of these monitoring and reporting requirements are to allow the Names Council to determine when, if ever, these recommendations and any ensuing policy require additional clarification or attention based on the results of the reports prepared by ICANN Staff." The ICANN staff have produced a 3 month report dated 14 April 2005, available at: http://www.icann.org/transfers/transfer-report-14apr05.pdf The report is based on public comments received, statistics from registry operator reports, and questions and complaints received by ICANN staff. Note also that the ICANN Security and Stability Advisory Committee is preparing a report on domain name hijacking, and one of its possible recommendations which was discussed in the ICANN meeting in Mar Del Plata was making it mandatory for a losing registrar to send a notification to the Registrant (this is presently optional for the losing registrar). Note that it is still the gaining registrars responsibility to authenticate the registrant, and receive authorisation. II Working Group task ====================== The task of the working group is to: (1) review the content of the report of 14 April 2005 with respect to: i. How effectively and to what extent the policies have been implemented and adopted by Registrars, Registries and Registrants, ii. Whether or not modifications to these policies should be considered by the GNSO as a result of the experiences gained during the implementation and monitoring stages, iii. The effectiveness of the dispute resolution processes and a summary of the filings that have been resolved through the process. (2) Identify the work items for the 6 month review. In particular determine what additional information and analysis is required to assist the GNSO in determining whether any refinements are required for the policy. Note this analysis may include a similar process to that used in the recent analysis of the practices of registrars with respect to requirements of registrars to provide information on the purpose for data collection and information on the recipients of the data. In this analysis an ICANN staff member documented the business processes used by the top 10 registrars, and a 10 other registrars chosen randomly. This analysis could complement the anecdotal evidence provided from public comments and queries received by ICANN staff. III Deliverable ================ The working group should produce a report to the GNSO Council with recommendations to the GNSO Council for work to be done by ICANN staff in the 6 month review.

1 0

Proposed consensus recommendation on improving notification to Registered Name Holders of the public access to contact data via the WHOIS service
by Bruce Tonkin 25 Jun '05

25 Jun '05

Hello All, Building on the work of the WHOIS task force, and the discussion on the GNSO Council to reach consensus, the following is a proposed consensus recommendation. I have put the recommendation in the context of solving a problem within ICANN's mission - ie that of security. I expect that there will also be benefits outside of ICANN's mission - including consumer protection (which includes privacy protection), but these are not addressed directly. I welcome feedback and suggestions for improvement. The recommendation (or as it is refined on the Council mailing list) will be on the agenda for the GNSO Council meeting in Luxembourg, and I encourage Council members to discuss it with their constituencies in Luxembourg. Finally I would like to thank the members of the WHOIS task force for their work in this area. Regards, Bruce Tonkin (I) Background =============== The obligations of a registrar are governed by the Registrar Accreditation Agreement (RAA) (http://www.icann.org/registrars/ra-agreement-17may01.htm) and ICANN consensus policies (http://www.icann.org/general/consensus-policies.htm). The obligations of a Registered Name Holder (Registrant) is governed by an electronic or paper registration agreement with the Registrar. Each Registrar's agreement is different, and Registered Name Holders (or their agents) should review each agreement when making their choice of Registrar. A registrar is obligated by the RAA to require a Registered Name Holder to agree to provide to the registrar accurate and reliable contact details and promptly correct and update them during the term of the Registered Name registration (clause 3.7.7.1 of the RAA). A registrar is obligated by the RAA to, at its expense, provide an interactive web page and a port 43 Whois service providing free public query-based access to up-to-date (i.e., updated at least daily) data concerning all active Registered Names sponsored by the Registrar (clause 3.3.1 of the RAA). In addition a Registrar must provide third-party bulk access to the data (clause 3.3.6 of the RAA). A registrar is obligated by the RAA to provide notice in the registration agreement with the Registered Name Holder stating: (a) The purposes for which any Personal Data collected from the applicant are intended; (b) The intended recipients or categories of recipients of the data (including the Registry Operator and others who will receive the data from Registry Operator); (c) Which data are obligatory and which data, if any, are voluntary; and (d) How the Registered Name Holder or data subject can access and, if necessary, rectify the data held about them. (II) Problem statement with respect to ICANN's mission and Core Values ===================================================================== >From Article 1, Section 1 of the ICANN Bylaws (http://www.icann.org/general/bylaws.htm#I ): "The mission of The Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers ("ICANN") is to coordinate, at the overall level, the global Internet's systems of unique identifiers, and in particular to ensure the stable and secure operation of the Internet's unique identifier systems. In particular, ICANN: 1. Coordinates the allocation and assignment of the three sets of unique identifiers for the Internet, which are a. Domain names (forming a system referred to as "DNS"); b. Internet protocol ("IP") addresses and autonomous system ("AS") numbers; and c. Protocol port and parameter numbers. 2. Coordinates the operation and evolution of the DNS root name server system. 3. Coordinates policy development reasonably and appropriately related to these technical functions." In addition one of ICANN's core values is: "Preserving and enhancing the operational stability, reliability, security, and global interoperability of the Internet." (Core value 1, from Article 1, section 2) The problem with the current system is that although registrars are required to include information in the registration agreement on the purposes for which data is collected and the intended recipients of the data, the information is often hard to find in long agreements, and often the information does not explicitly explain that personal data is freely available to third parties via the WHOIS service (for example sometimes a registrar makes a general statement such as that the information is provided to third parties in accordance with ICANN policies). Many registrants that reside in locations where strong privacy laws exist, would not expect their personal data to be used for anything other than the registration and renewal of a domain name, and the authentication of an entity claiming to be the registrant. In some locations a registrant must have the option to opt-in or opt-out of making the data provided for a registration available for any other purpose. The lack of knowledge amongst Registered Name Holders can lead to security problems for domain names. Many Registered Name Holders provide Personal information to companies that can be used by those companies for authentication (for example home billing address), and provide public information (such as post office box and business telephone number, typically via websites, whitepages and yellow pages services) suitable for third parties to contact the Registered Name Holders. Without an understanding of the obligation of a registrar to publish information to the public via a WHOIS service, Registered Name Holders may be inadvertently releasing information to the public normally used for authentication. This assists domain name hijackers (and those using stolen credit cards) to pretend to be the Registered Name Holder. Thus the problem falls under the ICANN mission, and in particular the first core value. (III) Proposed Consensus Recommendation ======================================= (1) Registrars must provide notice in the registration agreement with the Registered Name Holder that is easy to find, clear, and conspicuous within the registration agreement stating: (a) The purposes of the WHOIS service, which consists of the provision of an interactive web page and a port 43 Whois service providing free public query-based access to up-to-date (i.e., updated at least daily) data concerning all active Registered Names sponsored by the Registrar. In addition the WHOIS service includes the provision of third-party bulk access to the data. (b) The purposes of the Registered Name Holder, technical, and administrative contacts (c) Which of the contact data in (b) will be made public via the WHOIS service in (a). (2) ICANN must provide on its website information on industry best practice to meet the obligation in (1) above, and how to make the information available to the Registered Name Holder through means in addition to the registration agreement (e.g as part of the registration process, or via a privacy policy). The proposed recommendation will ensure that Registered Name Holders provide contact information that is appropriate for public access and sufficient for third parties to contact them in accordance with the purposes of the WHOIS service. The purposes will be refined as part of the current WHOIS task force work. Information (which may include Personal Data) that can be used for authentication and billing purposes will be separately provided to registrars.

1 0

RE: [council] WHOIS discussion - Largest ICANN Registrars
by Bruce Tonkin 24 Jun '05

24 Jun '05

Top 20 gets you to 78% Top 30 gets you to 85% ________________________________ From: owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Alick Wilson Sent: Thursday, 23 June 2005 11:17 PM To: council(a)gnso.icann.org Subject: [council] WHOIS discussion - Largest ICANN Registrars Largest ICANN Registrars http://www.webhosting.info/registrars/top-registrars/global/ <http://www.webhosting.info/registrars/top-registrars/global/> records top 10 registrars as having 64% market share.

1 0

GNSO Council meeting MP3 recording 23 June 2005
by GNSO.SECRETARIAT＠GNSO.ICANN.ORG 23 Jun '05

23 Jun '05

[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 June 23, 2005 at: http://gnso-audio.icann.org/GNSO-Council-20050623.mp3 http://www.gnso.icann.org/calendar/#june Happy listening! Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat - ICANN gnso.secretariat[at]gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

RE: WHOIS discussion - Largest ICANN Registrars
by Alick Wilson 23 Jun '05

23 Jun '05

Largest ICANN Registrars <http://www.webhosting.info/registrars/top-registrars/global/> http://www.webhosting.info/registrars/top-registrars/global/ records top 10 registrars as having 64% market share. Refer spreadsheet for cumulative share of top 30.

1 0