July 2006 - council - lists.icann.org

RE: [council] Motions passed by the GNSO Council on 20 July 2006
by Bruce Tonkin July 21, 2006

July 21, 2006

Hello All, > > (1) Any Council member who voted in favour of the definition may > provide a brief explanation of the reason for supporting the > resolution and their understanding of its meaning. > Note the motion was amended to include the option for an Advisory Committee that supports the current definition to also make a statement for the record through the appropriate liaison to the GNSO Council. This amendment was requested by Bret Fausett, the ALAC Liaison to the GNSO Council, as ALAC has participated in the work of the WHOIS task Force. Regards, Bruce Tonkin

1 0

GNSO Council teleconf. MP3 recording July 20, 2006
by GNSO.SECRETARIAT＠GNSO.ICANN.ORG July 20, 2006

July 20, 2006

[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 July 20, 2006 at: http://gnso-audio.icann.org/GNSO-Council-20060720.mp3 http://gnso.icann.org/calendar/#jul Happy listening! Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat - ICANN gnso.secretariat[at]gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

Motions passed by the GNSO Council on 20 July 2006
by GNSO.SECRETARIAT＠GNSO.ICANN.ORG July 20, 2006

July 20, 2006

[To: council[at]gnso.icann.org] Dear All, Ahead of the GNSO Council minutes, Council passed the following motions at its meeting on 20 July, 2006. Motion One on the WHOIS service =============================== "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) Any Council member who 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) http://www.icann.org/general/archive-bylaws/bylaws-28feb06.htm#AnnexA 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 (see below)." Motion 2 relating to the data that is collected by registrars ============================================================== "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 representative sample of registrar agreements with Registered Name Holders, taking into account the issues of geographical diversity and rule of law variances, 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 with registrants, taking into account the issues of geographical diversity and rule of law variances, 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 and abuses of the Personal Data that is currently made public through the WHOIS service. (4) Supported by 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." Kind regards, Glen -- Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat - ICANN gnso.secretariat[at]gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

Reason for vote on Motion One on the WHOIS service on 060720
by Avri Doria July 20, 2006

July 20, 2006

Hi, Having just voted affirmatively for a motion I spoke against, I figured I should put a brief explanation into the record. As I stated during the call and in previous emails I think: - council members should always be free to explain their votes if they so desire and that it should not take a special motion to enable this activity. - task force members are always free to, and in fact responsible for, paying attention to input from the community and from other stakeholders - it seems like it should be standard policy for the council to consult with the advisory committees before making a final decision on the final report from a task force. In fact I thought this was one of the reasons for liaison relationships. (BTW, I have wondered whether we should we have reciprocal liaisons on the advisory committees?) - the council should always consider a report carefully and reconsider any of its previous decisions in the light of new analyses or new facts. For the reasons above, I thought that most of the motion was at best superfluous. I did think that it would be useful for the staff to produce a summary of the input and was unwilling to vote against a motion that was explicit in its support of council openness. I, therefore, voted affirmatively. a.

1 0

phone connection died
by Robin Gross July 20, 2006

July 20, 2006

My cell phone's battery has died and dropped me out of this call. The UN building I'm in in Geneva is not allowing my VOIP to connect either, so I cannot get back into the call. I'll see if I can borrow someone else's cell phone to get back in the call. (Too bad we don't allow proxies. :-) ) Apologies, Robin

1 0

GNSO Council Meeting: Shinkuro room 20 July
by Liz Williams July 20, 2006

July 20, 2006

Colleagues I have put into the shinkuro room a document which contains all the links you'll need for today's meeting. I have embedded the links into a copy of the draft agenda. If you wish to use the Shinkuro room, please accept my invitation to join and you'll be able to see the file tab and the other members of the group. Speak to you in an hour. Liz ..................................................... Liz Williams Senior Policy Counselor ICANN - Brussels +32 2 234 7874 tel +32 2 234 7848 fax +32 497 07 4243 mob

1 0

Two motions for consideration in the conference call on 20 July 2006
by Bruce Tonkin July 20, 2006

July 20, 2006

Hello All, Below are the two separate motions that I propose to replace the motion on the topic of WHOIS that was discussed at the GNSO Council meeting in Marrakech. They are again slightly updated taking into account comments received since yesterday. Regards, Bruce Tonkin Motion One on the WHOIS service =============================== "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 (see below)." Motion 2 relating to the data that is collected by registrars ============================================================== "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 representative sample of registrar agreements with Registered Name Holders, taking into account the issues of geographical diversity and rule of law variances, 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 with registrants, taking into account the issues of geographical diversity and rule of law variances, 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 and abuses of the Personal Data that is currently made public through the WHOIS service. (4) Supported by 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."

2 1

Regarding one versus two proposed motions
by Bruce Tonkin July 20, 2006

July 20, 2006

Hello Marilyn, > > As to procedure: can you help all of us understand: > > Is there one motion, or two? Are you proposing to withdraw > the original complex motion and substitute two motions, or only one? Yes - I was proposing to withdraw the original motion that was discussed during our meeting in Marrakech, and replace it with two proposed motions. I was hoping that both of these motions would be accepted (or further improved). I will re-send the two motions in a single email. Regards, Bruce Tonkin

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, > The key point I am trying to make is > that staff could select only European ccTLDs -- it might > appear to be 'representative' but really isn't. I am quite > aware of the great diversity of the ccTLD community, since I > used to represent a MNC that registered in over 35 ccTLDs, > and when I co-chaired the WHOIS TF, we talked to probably > 10-12 different ccTLDs and learned a great deal about their > diversity. The mere difference of civil law versus common law > creates a diversity. And the different models -- strong > government involvement, no government involvement, benevolent > government involvement -- and other models still emerging... > all speak to the need to have 'representative ness' > not only geographical, but beyond that... > I will update the motion with your suggestions about having a suitably diverse range. > So, not willing to give up that criteria. I know that you > are very familiar with .au, but .au is one among many > different models. I think the point is to create a 'diverse' > and representative consultation -- and NOT to restrict > ourselves to only those TLDS that we presently 'know' as > individual councilors. Agreed. Incidentally, Melbourne IT is a global registrar, and registers in over 200 cctlds for our corporate customers (I think we support close to 300 when you consider second levels like .com.au, .co.jp etc) so I am also personally aware of the diversity that you describe. Regards, Bruce Tonkin

1 0

Regarding Proxy votes
by Bruce Tonkin July 20, 2006

July 20, 2006

Hello Robin, > Is there even a rationale for why we > currently don't allow proxy voting? Thank you. > It is currently not consistent with the bylaws for proxies at either the Board or GNSO Council. We can request that these be changed as part of an overhaul of the bylaws with respect to policy development. I believe that the rationale of the bylaws is that all members of a committee should be able to speak to and hear one another in a debate before making their final decision. Dan Halloran and others could probably give some background behind that requirement. I gather that it is currently considered best practice in the USA with respect to governance processes. In the past some non-profit Boards suffered from never having many of their members participate in Board meetings. If you give your vote in advance of a meeting, you may not be in possession of the same information as other people voting after the discussion during that meeting. The purpose of quorum is to ensure that no decision can be made unless there is a minimum number of Council members present. "Members entitled to cast a majority of the total number of votes of GNSO Council members then in office shall constitute a quorum for the transaction of business, and acts by a majority vote of the GNSO Council members present at any meeting at which there is a quorum shall be acts of the GNSO Council, unless otherwise provided herein. " I don't think there is any issue with respect to recording the views of those not present by proxy as part of the minutes of a meeting, it is just that these votes can't count towards passing a motion. I would hope that if a Council member is not able to attend a meeting, that they would at least express their views prior to a meeting via this mailing list. Regards, Bruce Tonkin

1 0