July 2006 - council - lists.icann.org

Dialogue versus Progress
by Bruce Tonkin July 20, 2006

July 20, 2006

Hello All, Speaking personally I think we need to get the right balance between Dialogue and Progress. The way to achieve this in my personal view, is to actually work on collecting well researched information, and creating concrete policy proposals. Then dialogue is useful to explain the benefits of a particular proposal, and also identify anything that has been missed in a particular proposal. The reaction to the WHOIS definition, has shown that we were probably premature in engaging in a dialogue until we had a concrete proposal that addresses the full terms of reference. Over the last few years we have had many WHOIS workshops, presentations, and discussions, but very little progress. I think that few members of the WHOIS task force or even the Council really need more presentations on how WHOIS is vitally important, and how it is currently being used. Our shared objective is still to improve the effectiveness of the WHOIS service, whilst taking into account where appropriate the need to ensure privacy protection for the Personal Data of natural persons. Our next steps should be to have a dialogue about our progress :-) That requires the development of quality information and policy proposals that we can use to discuss. Regards, Bruce Tonkin Council member

1 0

Regarding Powerpoint presentation in the GNSO/GAC workshop on Monday 26 June 2006
by Bruce Tonkin July 20, 2006

July 20, 2006

Hello Marilyn, > 'interpretation' via PowerPoint. There was a PowerPoint > created by Bruce, in an effort to help to inform the > discussion with the GAC/Council, that further explained some > key points and also provided an interpretation that all the > 'functions' > presently supported by the uses of WHOIS are possible under > Formulation 1. For the avoidance of doubt - I did not say that. I think we are getting an interpretation of an interpretation here :-) I said that the "language" used in formulation 1 did not exclude legal issues, as legal issues are one type of issue that can arise from the configuration of DNS records. Now different people may have had different objectives with formulation 1, but I was addressing the current "language" of formulation 1. The key difference in opinion seemed to be around whether WHOIS was to contact a person (or a person that could pass on information to another person) to fix a technical problem, e.g a domain name no longer resolves, or whether the WHOIS could be used to contact a person to resolve other types of issues. In my view if you want to constrain issues to only technical problems you would say "The purpose of WHOIS is to provide information sufficient to contact a responsible party for a particular gTLD domain name who can resolve, or reliably pass on data to a party who can resolve, a TECHNICAL issue related to the configuration of the records associated with the domain name within a DNS nameserver." I personally saw the language of formulation 1 as simpler than saying "technical, legal or other issues". Why single out just technical and legal? What if you simply want to make an offer to buy the domain name licence? What if you want to contact someone about the privacy or accuracy of the Personal Data that was being displayed. Personally I think the community has become overly distracted with the term "DNS Nameserver" as it sounds too technical, and thus when reading the formulation, it sounds like it is only about technical stuff. The relevant text from slide 8 of the Powerpoint presentation is: "- Technical, intellectual property, consumer protection, SPAM, fraud etc all result from the configuration of a DNS record - The definition makes no constraints on the types of issues - Definition allows for contact to resolve any issue arising from the configuration" Please quote from the PowerPoint presentation, if you want to quote me (or emails on this mailing list). I have attached it again. Unfortunately there was not a transcript made of the GAC/GNSO session, which was a pity given that the main auditorium was available at that time. I was actually waiting there for the session to begin - but that is another story :-) It seems to me that the debate is not really about the formulations - which are really almost the same purely from a language point of view, but the concern is about the end objectives of those that support the two formulations. I think there is far more variation in the end objectives of the various constituencies, than there is variation in the two formulations. For example, I do recall that Avri Doria stated that she did not think formulation 1 went far enough in meeting her objectives. Rather than waste further time on debating the formulations, it seems to me personally that we probably need to move on and discuss a possible reference implementation (e.g OPAC) that may not be quite as bad or good as some had hoped, but it might actually improve the effectiveness of the WHOIS service for us all. I am not sure yet what getting those who voted in support of formulation 1 to state their reasons why they supported formulation 1 will achieve, but I am happy to try it and see what we learn. Regards, Bruce

1 0

RE: [council] Version 2: Proposed motion regarding Personal Data that is collected and retained by registrars
by Bruce Tonkin July 20, 2006

July 20, 2006

Hello Marilyn, With respect to the motion, I think procedurally the proposer and seconder could withdraw the previous motion tabled in Marrakech (ie me and Tony Holmes), and then I can call for a seconder for a new motion. Alternatively we can vote on amending the original motion etc, - but I think that might get too cumbersome. Thanks for the suggested changes. Some comments below. > > > See inserts below in CAPS. > > > > "The GNSO Council notes that, consistent with generally accepted > > privacy principles, Registrars are required under clause 3.7.7.4 of > > the Registrar Accreditation Agreement to provide notice to > each new or > > renewed Registered Name Holder stating: > > > > (i) The purposes for which any Personal Data collected from the > > applicant are intended; > > > > (ii) The intended recipients or categories of recipients of > the data > > (including the Registry Operator and others who will > receive the data > > from Registry Operator); > > > > (iii) Which data ELEMENTS are obligatory and which data > ELEMENTS, if > > any, > are voluntary; > > and > > > > (iv) How the Registered Name Holder or data subject can > access and, if > > necessary, CORRECT OR rectify the data held about them. > > The text above is a direct quote from the current registrar agreement (I have changed the numbering to avoid confusion) - so I would prefer to leave that text unchanged. > > To further understand the range of purposes for which data is > > COLLECTED > AND USED [intended], > > the GNSO proposes the following steps: "Used" and "intended to be used" are different concepts. The focus of the motion is on the purpose of collecting the data. Of course any data that is obtained by a third party (ie not the registrant or registrar) may be used in different ways. Part 3 of the motion is attempting to summarise how the public information is used. > > > > (1) The ICANN staff will review a sample of registrar > agreements with > > Registered Name Holders to identify some of the purposes for which > > registrars collect Personal Data in the course of > registering a domain > > name for their customers. > > > > (2) The ICANN staff will review a REPRESENTATIVE sample of ccTLD > > registry > or ccTLD > > registrar agreements, TAKING INTO ACCOUNT THE ISSUES OF GEOGRAPHICAL > DIVERSITY AND RULE OF LAW VARIANCES, with registrants to > identify some of the purposes > > for which these organisations collect AND DISPLAY Personal Data from > registrants. This motion is focussed on the purpose for collecting data. I think it should stay constained to that topic. I think we have previously reviewed how ccTLDs display data as part of the WHOIS task force work. > > > > (3) The ICANN staff will summarise the current material that has > > resulted from WHOIS discussions since 2002 that document > the current > > uses of the data that is currently made public through the WHOIS > > service. [WHAT IS THE TIME FRAME FOR THIS PROJECT?] A good question. I would hope no more than 4 weeks, but the staff can hopefully provide an estimate based on their current work items. Regards, Bruce Tonkin

2 1

RE: [council] Version 2: Proposed motion regarding Personal Data that is collected and retained by registrars
by tony.ar.holmes＠bt.com July 20, 2006

July 20, 2006

I would like to support Norbert's request, we need to look at the use of proxy voting again. Tony -----Original Message----- From: owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Norbert Klein Sent: 19 July 2006 11:19 To: Bruce Tonkin Cc: Council GNSO Subject: Re: [council] Version 2: Proposed motion regarding Personal Data that is collected and retained by registrars Dear Council Colleagues, dear Bruce, dear Glen, I have not been able to participate in the recent discussions for technical constraints (computer/network). At present, the heavy rainy season makes it difficult to maintain stable wireless and satellite connection ("rain degradation") I will try to be online on Thursday, but maybe it will not work for me. All the more I would like to ask that the council can discuss again the possibility to create proxy vote facilities. Norbert = Bruce Tonkin wrote: > Hello All, > > I have also improved this motion after input from Dan Halloran, Maria > Farrell, Denise Michael, and various members of the GNSO community! > > Regards, > Bruce Tonkin > > > I propose the following new motion: > > "The GNSO Council notes that, consistent with generally accepted privacy > principles, Registrars are required under clause 3.7.7.4 of the > Registrar Accreditation Agreement to provide notice to each new or > renewed Registered Name Holder stating: > > (i) The purposes for which any Personal Data collected from the > applicant are intended; > > (ii) The intended recipients or categories of recipients of the data > (including the Registry Operator and others who will receive the data > from Registry Operator); > > (iii) Which data are obligatory and which data, if any, are voluntary; > and > > (iv) How the Registered Name Holder or data subject can access and, if > necessary, rectify the data held about them. > > To further understand the range of purposes for which data is intended, > the GNSO proposes the following steps: > > (1) The ICANN staff will review a sample of registrar agreements with > Registered Name Holders to identify some of the purposes for which > registrars collect Personal Data in the course of registering a domain > name for their customers. > > (2) The ICANN staff will review a sample of cctld registry or cctld > registrar agreements with registrants to identify some of the purposes > for which these organisations collect Personal Data from registrants. > > (3) The ICANN staff will summarise the current material that has > resulted from WHOIS discussions since 2002 that document the current > uses of the data that is currently made public through the WHOIS > service. > > (4) Based on the material produced in steps (1), (2) and (3) above, the > Council will undertake a dialogue with the ICANN Advisory Committee's > such as the GAC, SSAC and ALAC regarding the purposes for collecting > Personal Data, and discuss whether any policy development is required in > this area consistent with ICANN's mission and core values. > > The dialogue should seek to examine and understand consumer protection, > privacy/data protection and law enforcement perspectives." > > > >

3 2

Proposed simplified WHOIS motion for 20 July 2006
by Bruce Tonkin July 19, 2006

July 19, 2006

Hello All, Further to my previous motion, here is a simplified motion that is constrained to matters concerning the WHOIS service. Regards, Bruce Tonkin Proposed Simplified Motion on WHOIS The GNSO Council notes that the current WHOIS definition is related to the service that provides public access to some or all of the data collected, and is not a definition of the purpose of the data itself. In response to the extensive community and Government input on the definition of the purpose of WHOIS, the GNSO Council agrees to undertake the following steps: (1) Each Council member that voted in favour of the definition will provide a brief explanation of the reason for supporting the resolution and their understanding of its meaning. (2) The ICANN staff will provide a summary of the other interpretations of the definition that have been expressed during the public comment period, and subsequently in correspondence from the public and Governments. (3) The GNSO Council requests that the WHOIS task force continue with their work as specified in the terms of reference taking into account the recent input that has been provided. (4) The GNSO Council will take the final report from the WHOIS task force that addresses all terms of reference, and consider improving the wording of the WHOIS service definition so that it is broadly understandable.

6 12

RE: [council] Draft GNSO Council Agenda for Thursday 20 July 2006
by tony.ar.holmes＠bt.com July 19, 2006

July 19, 2006

Bruce Apologies I will be on vacation in August and unable to attend the proposed call on the 3rd. Tony -----Original Message----- From: owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Bruce Tonkin Sent: 19 July 2006 10:56 To: Council GNSO Subject: RE: [council] Draft GNSO Council Agenda for Thursday 20 July 2006 Hello All, I am sure our next meeting will spend considerable time on item 2 of the agenda. With regard to item 3 of the agenda on IDNs, I have had several requests for more time to both refine the issues report, and also refine the terms of reference. I propose we hold a separate Council teleconference on Thursday 3 August to consider the IDN issues report and terms of reference. Regards, Bruce Tonkin > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org > [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Bruce Tonkin > Sent: Tuesday, 11 July 2006 7:17 PM > To: Council GNSO > Subject: [council] Draft GNSO Council Agenda for Thursday 20 July 2006 > > > Draft Agenda for Council meeting - Thursday 20 July 2006 > > Coordinated Universal Time UTC 12:00 > > (5:00am Los Angeles, 8:00am Washington DC, 9:00am Buenos > Aires, 13:00 London, 14:00 Brussels, 19:00 Phnom Penh, 22:00 > Melbourne, 00:00 Auckland) > > Item 1: Update any statements of interest > > Item 2: Vote on tabled WHOIS motion from Marrakech > - updated motion to be provided by Bruce Tonkin by 13 July 2006 > > Item 3: Vote to initiate IDN-gTLD PDP [PDP-Jul06] > - updated IDN issues report with proposed terms of reference > to be provided by Olof Nordling by 13 July 06 > > Item 4: Update on PDP-Dec05 - new gTLDs > - Dr Liz Williams > - confirm planning for face-to-face meeting > > Item 5: Update on PDP-Feb06 - Contractual conditions for > existing gTLDs > - Dr Liz Williams > > Item 6: Any other business > > Regards, > Bruce Tonkin > > > >

1 0

Version 2: Proposed motion regarding Personal Data that is collected and retained by registrars
by Bruce Tonkin July 19, 2006

July 19, 2006

Hello All, I have also improved this motion after input from Dan Halloran, Maria Farrell, Denise Michael, and various members of the GNSO community! Regards, Bruce Tonkin I propose the following new motion: "The GNSO Council notes that, consistent with generally accepted privacy principles, Registrars are required under clause 3.7.7.4 of the Registrar Accreditation Agreement to provide notice to each new or renewed Registered Name Holder stating: (i) The purposes for which any Personal Data collected from the applicant are intended; (ii) The intended recipients or categories of recipients of the data (including the Registry Operator and others who will receive the data from Registry Operator); (iii) Which data are obligatory and which data, if any, are voluntary; and (iv) How the Registered Name Holder or data subject can access and, if necessary, rectify the data held about them. To further understand the range of purposes for which data is intended, the GNSO proposes the following steps: (1) The ICANN staff will review a sample of registrar agreements with Registered Name Holders to identify some of the purposes for which registrars collect Personal Data in the course of registering a domain name for their customers. (2) The ICANN staff will review a sample of cctld registry or cctld registrar agreements with registrants to identify some of the purposes for which these organisations collect Personal Data from registrants. (3) The ICANN staff will summarise the current material that has resulted from WHOIS discussions since 2002 that document the current uses of the data that is currently made public through the WHOIS service. (4) Based on the material produced in steps (1), (2) and (3) above, the Council will undertake a dialogue with the ICANN Advisory Committee's such as the GAC, SSAC and ALAC regarding the purposes for collecting Personal Data, and discuss whether any policy development is required in this area consistent with ICANN's mission and core values. The dialogue should seek to examine and understand consumer protection, privacy/data protection and law enforcement perspectives."

3 2

RE: [council] Draft GNSO Council Agenda for Thursday 20 July 2006
by Bruce Tonkin July 19, 2006

July 19, 2006

Hello All, I am sure our next meeting will spend considerable time on item 2 of the agenda. With regard to item 3 of the agenda on IDNs, I have had several requests for more time to both refine the issues report, and also refine the terms of reference. I propose we hold a separate Council teleconference on Thursday 3 August to consider the IDN issues report and terms of reference. Regards, Bruce Tonkin > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org > [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Bruce Tonkin > Sent: Tuesday, 11 July 2006 7:17 PM > To: Council GNSO > Subject: [council] Draft GNSO Council Agenda for Thursday 20 July 2006 > > > Draft Agenda for Council meeting - Thursday 20 July 2006 > > Coordinated Universal Time UTC 12:00 > > (5:00am Los Angeles, 8:00am Washington DC, 9:00am Buenos > Aires, 13:00 London, 14:00 Brussels, 19:00 Phnom Penh, 22:00 > Melbourne, 00:00 Auckland) > > Item 1: Update any statements of interest > > Item 2: Vote on tabled WHOIS motion from Marrakech > - updated motion to be provided by Bruce Tonkin by 13 July 2006 > > Item 3: Vote to initiate IDN-gTLD PDP [PDP-Jul06] > - updated IDN issues report with proposed terms of reference > to be provided by Olof Nordling by 13 July 06 > > Item 4: Update on PDP-Dec05 - new gTLDs > - Dr Liz Williams > - confirm planning for face-to-face meeting > > Item 5: Update on PDP-Feb06 - Contractual conditions for > existing gTLDs > - Dr Liz Williams > > Item 6: Any other business > > Regards, > Bruce Tonkin > > > >

1 0

RE: Version 2: Proposed motion regarding Personal Data that is collected and retained by registrars
by Bruce Tonkin July 19, 2006

July 19, 2006

Note I guess this motion should also have a backward reference as well: "This motion arose from clause (3) of the proposed WHOIS motion discussed during the GNSO Council meeting in Marrakech". > > > I propose the following new motion: > > "The GNSO Council notes that, consistent with generally > accepted privacy principles, Registrars are required under > clause 3.7.7.4 of the Registrar Accreditation Agreement to > provide notice to each new or renewed Registered Name Holder stating: > > (i) The purposes for which any Personal Data collected from > the applicant are intended; > > (ii) The intended recipients or categories of recipients of > the data (including the Registry Operator and others who will > receive the data from Registry Operator); > > (iii) Which data are obligatory and which data, if any, are > voluntary; and > > (iv) How the Registered Name Holder or data subject can > access and, if necessary, rectify the data held about them. > > To further understand the range of purposes for which data is > intended, the GNSO proposes the following steps: > > (1) The ICANN staff will review a sample of registrar > agreements with Registered Name Holders to identify some of > the purposes for which registrars collect Personal Data in > the course of registering a domain name for their customers. > > (2) The ICANN staff will review a sample of cctld registry or > cctld registrar agreements with registrants to identify some > of the purposes for which these organisations collect > Personal Data from registrants. > > (3) The ICANN staff will summarise the current material that > has resulted from WHOIS discussions since 2002 that document > the current uses of the data that is currently made public > through the WHOIS service. > > (4) Based on the material produced in steps (1), (2) and (3) > above, the Council will undertake a dialogue with the ICANN > Advisory Committee's such as the GAC, SSAC and ALAC regarding > the purposes for collecting Personal Data, and discuss > whether any policy development is required in this area > consistent with ICANN's mission and core values. > > The dialogue should seek to examine and understand consumer > protection, privacy/data protection and law enforcement perspectives." > >

1 0

Version 2: Proposed simplified WHOIS motion for 20 July 2006
by Bruce Tonkin July 19, 2006

July 19, 2006

Hello All, Here is an improved version. Thanks for input from Dan Halloran, Maria Farrell, Denise Michael, and various members of the GNSO community! Regards, Bruce Tonkin Proposed Simplified Motion on WHOIS "The GNSO Council notes that the WHOIS definition approved by the GNSO Council on 18 April 06, as a working definition to allow the WHOIS task force to proceed with its work, is related to the service that provides public access to some of the data collected by registrars. It is not a definition of the purpose of the data collected by the registrars in the course of registering a domain name for their customers. In response to the extensive community and Government input on the definition of the purpose of WHOIS, the GNSO Council agrees to undertake the following steps: (1) Each Council member that voted in favour of the definition may provide a brief explanation of the reason for supporting the resolution and their understanding of its meaning. (2) The ICANN staff will provide a summary of the other interpretations of the definition that have been expressed during the public comment period, and subsequently in correspondence from the public and Governments. (3) The GNSO Council requests that the WHOIS task force continue with their work as specified in the terms of reference taking into account the recent input that has been provided. (4) The GNSO Council will take the Final Report (as specified in clause 9(c) of the GNSO PDP process) from the WHOIS task force after the task force finishes its work on all the terms of reference, engage in further dialogue with the Advisory Committees (including the GAC, SSAC and ALAC), and consider improving the wording of the WHOIS service definition so that it is broadly understandable. Note that the WHOIS Task force will produce a Task Force Report (as specified in clause 7(e) of the GNSO PDP process) later in 2006 that addresses all terms of reference. This report will be subject to a further public comment process, and the output of this public comment will be incorporated into the Final Report. Note that the previous clause (3) in the motion posted on 13 July 2006 that related to the purposes for collecting data is now the subject of a separate motion."

1 0