October 2007 - council - lists.icann.org

Motions for 31 October
by Avri Doria Oct. 30, 2007

Oct. 30, 2007

Hi, I have updated the motions page with the motions that are under discussion. They can be found at http://docs.google.com/Doc? docid=dcxsr2n8_3q2t4sx&hl=en I have included some possible motions regarding the Inter-registrar Transfer Issues report that have no been made yet, but which had been discussed on-line and in our meeting. Please feel free to edit the text of any motion for which you are the proposer. Please send the list any comments or other corrections. a.

1 0

Gala evening, Tuesday 30 October tickets
by GNSO.SECRETARIAT＠GNSO.ICANN.ORG Oct. 29, 2007

Oct. 29, 2007

Dear All, I have tickets /invitations for the Gala event at the Sony studios tomorrow Tuesday, for all the Council members and will go around handing them out in the morning. Thanks Glen Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat - ICANN gnso.secretariat[at]gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

GNSO Council/ICANN Board/ Staff dinner 29 October at 20:00
by GNSO.SECRETARIAT＠GNSO.ICANN.ORG Oct. 29, 2007

Oct. 29, 2007

Dear All, Reminder, the GNSO Council/ICANN Board/ Staff dinner is tonight, Monday 29 October, at 20:00 (8:00pm) in the Plaza room. See you there. Glen -- Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat - ICANN gnso.secretariat[at]gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

Allocation of an IDN label for a territory designated in the ISO 3166-1 list
by Bruce Tonkin Oct. 28, 2007

Oct. 28, 2007

Hello All, Just to provide a response to a question from Marilyn Cade yesterday - about whether the current organisation running a ccTLD would be allocated a corresponding IDN based TLD. (1) The process of identifying an appropriate IDN string that corresponds to the name of a territory in the ISO 3166-1 list is separate from the process of allocating ("delegating") the string to an organisation ("TLD manager") to operate. (2) The current expectation is that the allocation process ("delegation") would be consistent with the current process for allocating a string in the ISO table. See: http://www.icann.org/icp/icp-1.htm Key text includes: "Delegation of a New Top Level Domain. Delegation of a new top level domain requires the completion of a number of procedures, including the identification of a TLD manager with the requisite skills and authority to operate the TLD appropriately. The desires of the government of a country with regard to delegation of a ccTLD are taken very seriously. The IANA will make them a major consideration in any TLD delegation/transfer discussions. Significantly interested parties in the domain should agree that the proposed TLD manager is the appropriate party." Regards, Bruce Tonkin

1 0

Revised GNSO Comments re. ccNSO/GAC Issues Paper on IDN ccTLDs
by Gomes, Chuck Oct. 28, 2007

Oct. 28, 2007

The following two documents are attached in response to the work the Council did yesterday regarding the draft GNSO Comments re. ccNSO/GAC Issues Paper on IDN ccTLDs: 1. A redlined version of the Executive Summary highlighting the changes that Cary, Edmon, Olof and I made 2. A revised version of the full document that highlights all of the changes made in the document, noting that the Executive Summary was replaced in total and two changes were made at the end of page 8. It is important to note that, other than the two changes made at the end of page 8, we did not make any other changes to the body of the document even in cases where we made changes to the Executive Summary. Note that Avri plans to share the draft Executive Summary in our meeting with the GAC later today; she will make clear that it has not yet been finalized by the Council. Feel free to communicate any questions or comments. Chuck Gomes "This message is intended for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain information that is privileged, confidential and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. Any unauthorized use, distribution, or disclosure is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please notify sender immediately and destroy/delete the original transmission."

1 0

Apologies for discussion on the proposals to change GNSO processes
by Bruce Tonkin Oct. 28, 2007

Oct. 28, 2007

Hello All, Just a note to let you know that I am attending the Board's Finance Committee meeting this morning, and hence was not able to attend the session between the Board's Working Group and the GNSO at 9am today. I will attend various constituency meetings over the next couple of days, but feel free to give me your feedback directly. Regards, Bruce Tonkin

1 0

SSAC: whois/spam powerpoint attached
by Bruce Tonkin Oct. 28, 2007

Oct. 28, 2007

Attached is a copy of the presentation from Dave Piscitello. Regards, Bruce Tonkin

1 0

Text of motion on WHOIS from 6 Sept 2007 Council meeting
by Bruce Tonkin Oct. 28, 2007

Oct. 28, 2007

From: http://www.gnso.icann.org/meetings/minutes-gnso-06sep07.shtml Note the requests of staff in point (c) and point 4 below. Regards, Bruce Tonkin Decision 4: Whereas the Whois WG has now completed its work, Therefore: The GNSO Council accepts the Final Outcomes Report of the Working Group 2007 http://gnso.icann.org/drafts/icann-whois-wg-report-final-1-9.pdf and appreciates the efforts made by WG participants and ICANN staff in preparing this report. Further, the GNSO council: a) graciously thanks all of the volunteers, consultants, staff and others who have participated in the Task Force and Working Group. b) makes no specific policy recommendation to the ICANN board at this time concerning Whois or related policy. c) requests ICANN Staff proceed with a study of gTLD registrations and registrants and how Whois data is used and misused as described in the GAC Principles Regarding gTLD WHOIS Service paragraph 4.2, http://gac.icann.org/web/home/WHOIS_principles.pdf and by the Working Group Final Outcomes Report. http://gnso.icann.org/drafts/icann-whois-wg-report-final-1-9.pdf This study should include a review and analysis of the different proxy services available today and a summary of any other statistical studies that Staff can locate. We ask staff to report back to the Council on the 'study to date' by October 4. d) requests an update on the WHOIS Data Accuracy Program outlined by ICANN Staff on April 27th, including any statistical information that can be summarized thus far. See http://www.icann.org/whois/whois-data-accuracy-program-27apr07.pdf. e) requests an update on the pending SSAC study on "Information Gathering Using Domain Name Registration Records" outlined in September, 2006. See http://www.icann.org/committees/security/information-gathering-28Sep2006 .pdf f) shall review any additional factual information, in conjunction with the policy suggestions from the Task Force and Working Group reports, complete this work on Whois, and make a report to the ICANN community and to the ICANN Board, as follows: 1 - Staff will produce a Draft Final Report that references the Task Force report, the WG charter and the WG report and which includes an overall description of the process by September 13, 2007. This overview should include the text of motions to be voted on at the end of this process. 2 - This report will be sent out for Constituency Statement Review on September 13, 2007. Constituencies will be asked to follow the by-laws on constituency statements. http://www.icann.org/general/archive-bylaws/bylaws-28feb06.htm#AnnexA Section 7 d. Collection of Information. Specifically "1. Constituency Statements. The Representatives will each be responsible for soliciting the position of their constituencies, at a minimum, and other comments as each Representative deems appropriate, regarding the issue under consideration. This position and other comments, as applicable, should be submitted in a formal statement to the task force chair (sic) (each, a "Constituency Statement") within thirty-five (35) calendar days after initiation of the PDP (sic). Every Constituency Statement shall include at least the following: (i) If a Supermajority Vote was reached, a clear statement of the constituency's position on the issue; (ii) If a Supermajority Vote was not reached, a clear statement of all positions espoused by constituency members; (iii) A clear statement of how the constituency arrived at its position(s). Specifically, the statement should detail specific constituency meetings, teleconferences, or other means of deliberating an issue, and a list of all members who participated or otherwise submitted their views; (iv) An analysis of how the issue would affect the constituency, including any financial impact on the constituency; and (v) An analysis of the period of time that would likely be necessary to implement the policy." **Final Date for updated constituency statement: October 4, 2007 3 - Staff will Incorporate Constituency comments and any additional factual information into Final Report by October 11, 2007 4 - Staff is requested to produce staff implementation notes by October 15, 2007. 5 - Community Public Comment on Final Report: October 15 - 31 , 2007. 6 - A Public and Council Discussion will be held during the Los Angeles Public Meeting. 7 - Final vote during the Los Angeles public GNSO Council meeting.

2 1

Statement of Registrar Accreditation Policy
by Bruce Tonkin Oct. 27, 2007

Oct. 27, 2007

The following policy was approved by the Board in March 1999. http://www.icann.org/registrars/policy_statement.html I includes the WHOIS provisions that are currently in the Registrar Accreditation Agreement. Regards, Bruce

1 0

Last WHOIS Issues report
by Bruce Tonkin Oct. 27, 2007

Oct. 27, 2007

Hello All, The issues report that initiated this current WHOIS PDP, was prepared by Louis Toutton in May 2003. See: http://www.icann.org/gnso/issue-reports/whois-privacy-report-13may03.htm Here is an interesting quote: "The staff recommends that the GNSO Council not initiate a PDP on any of the Whois/privacy issues until significant additional work is done on investigating the factual background, in analyzing interrelationships of the issues, and in more clearly delineating the issues to be pursued. Additional work in these areas should provide the necessary understanding of the circumstances surrounding the uses and misuses of Whois, their effects on privacy concerns, and the issues and their inter-relationships. " Here are the positions of the constituencies at the time - 4 years ago: "Non-Commercial Users - Place great emphasis on privacy of Whois data. Commercial Users - Place great emphasis on accountability of uses of the Internet, and therefore on accessibility of Whois data for legitimate purposes. Intellectual Property Interests - Stress the importance of ready access to accurate Whois data to support investigation of cybersquatting, copyright violations, and counterfeiting activities. ISPs - Support ready access to accurate Whois data to facilitate resolution of network problems and sourcing of spam. Registrars - View registrant data as an important business asset which should not be made available to competitors. (In this regard, registrars are largely aligned with resellers.) Registrars also receive complaints from registrants reporting that they have received unsolicited renewal notices, and other offers by phone, postal mail, fax, or e-mail targeted at registrants using the information available via Whois. However, registrars also need a mechanism to access the registrant data of competitors to confirm authorization of transfers. Registrars also bear the expense of providing registrar-level Whois service. gTLD Registries - Registry operators bear the expense of providing registry-level Whois service, and may also view the aggregate data as an important business asset that should not be made available to competing registry operators." Below is the list of issues catalogued: Issues Concerning Data Collection 1. Should the elements of data that registrars are required to collect at the time of registration of a domain name be revised? (See Registrar Accreditation Agreement (RAA) § 3.2.) 2. Should registrars be prohibited by ICANN from collecting additional items of data? 3. Should all registrants, or certain classes of registrants (see Issue 18 below), be afforded the option of not providing some or all elements that registrars are required to collect and, if so, which elements? 4. Should the current mechanism for pseudonymous registration be changed or supplemented with one or more alternative mechanisms? (See RAA § 3.7.7.3.) Should steps be taken to encourage broader availability of this mechanism? 5. Are the current requirements that registrars make disclosures to, and obtain consent by, registrants concerning the uses of collected data adequate and appropriate? (See RAA §§ 3.7.7.4 to 3.7.7.6.) Issues Concerning Data Quality 6. Are the procedures currently followed by registrars adequate to promote accurate, complete, and up-to-date data, as required by both privacy and accountability principles? (See RAA §§ 3.7.7.1, 3.7.7.2, and 3.7.8, as well as the GNSO s Whois recommendations on accuracy adopted by the ICANN Board on 27 March 2003.) 7. What should be the consequences when a registrant provides inaccurate or incomplete data, or fails to correct inaccurate or incomplete data? (See RAA §§ 3.7.7.1, 3.7.7.2, and 3.7.8.) Are safeguards needed to prevent abusive reports of inaccuracies? Should certain classes of registrants (see Issue 18 below) be permitted to provide inaccurate or incomplete data? Issues Concerning Data Handling 8. Are the current requirements that registrars handle personal data according to the notices given at the time of registration, and in a manner that avoids loss, misuse, unauthorized access or disclosure, alteration, or destruction, adequate and appropriate? (See RAA §§ 3.7.7.7 and 3.7.7.8.) 9. Are the current requirements for handling of registrar data by registry operators adequate and appropriate? Issues Concerning Data Disclosure 10. Are the current means of query-based access appropriate? Should both web-based access and port-43 access be required? (RAA § 3.3.1.) 11. What are the purposes for providing public query-based access? Are the elements currently required to be disclosed in public query-based access adequate and appropriate? (RAA § 3.3.1.) 12. What measures, if any, should registrars and registry operators be permitted to take to limit data mining of Whois servers? 13. Should access to data be differentiated based on the party receiving access, or based on the use to which the data will be put? If so, how should differentiated access be implemented and how should the cost of differentiation be funded? 14. Should the current requirement that registrars provide bulk Whois access for non-marketing uses be further limited or eliminated? (RAA § 3.3.6, as well as the GNSO s Whois recommendations on accuracy adopted by the ICANN Board on 27 March 2003.) Issues Concerning Data Use 15. Which uses of Whois data by members of the public should be permitted (e.g., resolving technical problems, sourcing spam, identifying online merchants, law enforcement activities, identifying online infringers for enforcement of intellectual property rights, etc.)? Which uses should be prohibited? 16. How should restrictions on permissible uses by members of the public be enforced? (RAA §§ 3.3.6.3 to 3.3.6.5.) 17. To what extent is Whois data actually used to the harm of registrants (e.g., identity theft, spam, stalking, and other harassment)? Issues Concerning Classification of Registrants 18. Should certain types of registrants (e.g., those using domains for political and similar activities) be exempt from the usual requirements to provide data, or to have it available in Whois? How should the eligibility of particular registrants for these exemptions be determined? Are measures required to address the possibility of abuses in the classification procedure? Issues Concerning Commercial Confidentiality and Rights in Data 19. Should registrars have the option, independent of their customers, to protect the confidentiality of Whois data based on registrars proprietary rights to that data? Are the current provisions permitting registrars to claim proprietary rights in personal data about their customers appropriate? (RAA § 3.5.) 20. Should there be ICANN requirements limiting registrars' ability to sell or use Whois data, or other data collected about customers, for commercial purposes?

1 0