April 2007 - council - lists.icann.org

GNSO Council resolutions passed at the 12 April 2007 meeting
by GNSO.SECRETARIAT＠GNSO.ICANN.ORG April 16, 2007

April 16, 2007

[To: council[at]gnso.icann.org] Dear All, Ahead of the complete GNSO Council minutes, Council passed the following motions at its meeting on 12 April 2007. Motion One: Ratify election results for ICANN Board seat #13 ============================================================ The GNSO Council resolved to ratify the election results for ICANN Board seat number 13 which were 21 votes for Bruce Tonkin, 3 abstentions, 3 votes not cast. Motion Two: Ratify WHOIS working group statement of work ========================================================== 2. The GNSO Council resolved to accept the WHOIS Working Group Charter http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg03357.html (text below) making the changes listed below: - update the Background section with: --previous council decisions http://gnso.icann.org/meetings/minutes-gnso-12apr06.shtml http://gnso.icann.org/meetings/minutes-gnso-20jul06.shtml http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg03405.html --specific reference to the GAC principles http://gac.icann.org/web/communiques/gac27com.pdf highlighting the GAC's list of legitimate activities. http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg03348.html Section 3: footnote reference to specific section of the Task Force Report. Section 4B: place current material in Background Section 4C: adjust sentence to determine how and which legitimate third parties can access registration data that is no longer available for unrestricted public query based access. WHOIS Working Group Charter http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg03357.html 1 INTRODUCTION The GNSO Council voted on 28 March, 2007 to create a Whois Working Group with a broad, balanced and representative membership to take the output of the WHOIS task force and carry out further work to address concerns raised by the community and seek to reach greater consensus around improvements to the WHOIS service that achieve a balance between providing contact information adequate to facilitate timely resolution of any problems that arise in connection with the Register Name, and the need to take reasonable precautions to protect the data about any identified or identifiable natural person from loss, misuse, unauthorized access or disclosure, alteration, or destruction. 2 Background Whois ICANN’s agreements with gTLD registrars and gTLD registries require them to provide data concerning active Registered Names via three mechanisms: port-43 WHOIS, an interactive web page (often called WHOIS service), and third-party bulk access. The Registrar Accreditation Agreement (RAA) spells out which data is collected and which data is made available. The data includes contact information of natural persons that includes names, postal addresses, email addresses, fax and voice telephone numbers. Whois Policy Development Process (PDP) The GNSO is approaching the end of a PDP on Whois that should fulfill terms of reference agreed in June 2005. The terms of reference of the PDP (http://gnso.icann.org/policies/terms-of-reference.html) are to make policy recommendations to the Board on: 1. The purpose of the Whois service 2. The purpose of the Whois contacts (ie Registered Name Holder, technical contact, and administrative contact) and the purpose for which the data is collected. 3. Which data should be available for public access, and determine how to access data that is not available for public access. 4. How to improve the process for notifying a registrar of inaccurate data, and how to improve the process for correcting inaccurate data. 5. How to deal with any conflicts between the requirements of ICANN agreements, and local or national privacy laws Regarding term of reference #5, a Policy on conflicts between Whois requirements and local or national privacy laws was developed by the GNSO and approved by the Board on 10 May 2006. A draft Procedure for Handling Whois Conflicts with Privacy Law has been published on the ICANN website at (http://gnso.icann.org/issues/whois-privacy/whois_national_laws_procedure.htm) The Final Task Force Report on Whois Services was submitted to the GNSO Council on 12 March, 2007. The Task Force Report and Staff Discussion Points on Potential Implementation Issues are available at http://icann.org/announcements/announcement-16mar07.htm. The GNSO Council met to consider the WHOIS task force report on Saturday 25 March 2007, and also met with the Government Advisory Committee. Various concerns were raised regarding some of the recommendations in the report, and subsequently the GNSO Council met on Wednesday 28 March and decided to form a working group to attempt to resolve some of the issues raised. 3 Objective The objective of the WG is to examine the issues raised with respect to the policy recommendations of the task force and make recommendations concerning how those policies recommendations may be improved to address these issues. 4 Work Plan 4a Define the roles, responsibilities, and requirements of the contacts available for unrestricted public query-based access, and what happens if the responsibilities are not fulfilled. 4b. Determine how third parties may access registration data that is no longer available for unrestricted public query-based access for legitimate activities. The GAC Policy Principles on gTLD Whois Services (dated 28 March 07) sets out a list of legitimate (subject to applicable national law) activities, including: 1. Supporting the security and stability of the Internet by providing contact points for network operators and administrators, including ISPs, and certified computer incident response teams; 2. Allowing users to determine the availability of domain names; 3. Assisting law enforcement authorities in investigations, in enforcing national and international laws, including, for example, countering terrorism-related criminal offences and in supporting international cooperation procedures. In some countries, specialized non governmental entities may be involved in this work; 4. Assisting in combating against abusive uses of Information and Communication Technologies (ICTs), such as illegal and other acts motivated by racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia, and related intolerance, hatred, violence, all forms of child abuse, including paedophilia and child pornography, and trafficking in, and exploitation of, human beings. 5. Facilitating enquiries and subsequent steps to conduct trademark clearances and to help counter intellectual property infringement, misuse and theft in accordance with applicable national laws and international treaties; 6. Contributing to user confidence in the Internet as a reliable and efficient means of information and communication and as an important tool for promoting digital inclusion, e-commerce and other legitimate uses by helping users identify persons or entities responsible for content and services online; and 7. Assisting businesses, other organizations and users in combating fraud, complying with relevant laws, and safeguarding the interests of the public. 4c Determine whether and how a distinction could be made between the registration contact information published based on the nature of the registered name holder (for example, legal vs. natural persons) or its use of the domain name (for example, commercial versus non-commercial use).. 5 Participation The WG will allow for new insights regarding this issue, with people drawn from the GNSO, members of the GAC, government agencies (such as law enforcement agencies), and the broader community. The membership of this WG extends to the following: • Nominating Committee appointed GNSO councilors • GNSO constituency members In addition, observers and liaisons may join the working group on the following basis: Observers shall not be members of or entitled to vote on the working group, but otherwise shall be entitled to participate on equal footing with members of the working group. In particular observers will be able to join the mailing list, and attend teleconferences or physical meetings. Observers must provide their real name, organization (if associated with an organization) and contact details to the GNSO secretariat, and the GNSO secretariat will verify at least their email address and phone contact information. Observers will also be requested to provide a public statement of interest, as for working group members. The GNSO Council will appoint an interim Chair of the WG and the working group can elect a chair at its first meeting. 6 Working Methods The WG will work using the following methods: • Teleconferences, likely to be once a week • Wiki / other participatory forum or platform for group decision-making • Face to face meeting at ICANN Puerto Rico meeting, 25-29 June, 2007. • Email list 7 Decision-making The WG will operate using a rough consensus approach. The WG will work to achieve agreement on positions that most or all of the group members are willing to support. For the expression of views, the Working Group will use the following conventions: - Agreement – there is broad agreement within the Working Group (largely equivalent to “rough consensus” as used in the IETF) - Support – there is some gathering of positive opinion, but competing positions may exist and broad agreement has not been reached - Alternative view – a differing opinion that has been expressed, without garnering enough following within the WG to merit the notion of either Support or Agreement. Working with the group, the Chair will have the authority to establish where agreement/support/alternative views exist. 8 Timeline The WG will convene within one week of the GNSO Council’s agreement of its Charter, by 20 April, 2007, latest. The WG will work to achieve the following targets: 1. Produce for publication on the ICANN website a progress reports by each of the following dates: 25 May, 2007, and 22 June, 2007. 2. Conclude its work and submit a final report to the GNSO Council on or before 26 July, 2007. If the WG has not been able to reach conclusions by 26 July, 2007, it will terminate its work and report its outcomes to the GNSO Council by that date. 9 Relevant Documents The following documents are directly relevant to the work of this Working Group and should be read by participants before joining the group: • Final Task Force Report on Whois Services, including the public comments report on comments received on the policy proposals from November 2006 – January 2007; http://gnso.icann.org/issues/whois-privacy/whois-services-final-tf-report-1… . • Staff notes on Potential Implementation Issues; http://gnso.icann.org/issues/whois/staff-discussion-points-whois-final-15ma… • Government Advisory Committee Principles regarding gTLD WHOIS Services http://gac.icann.org/web/communiques/gac27com.pdf Motion Three: Appoint an interim chair for the WHOIS working group ============================================================= The GNSO Council resolved to appoint Philip Sheppard as interim Chair of the Whois Working Group, that Philip would undertake to chair the group in a neutral manner and undertake to take input from others in determining what constitutes rough consensus of the Working Group. Motion Four: Ratify extension to Reserved Names Working Group statement of work ======================================================================= The GNSO Council resolved, per the terms of the original Reserved Name Working Group (RN-WG) Statement of Work approved by the Council, http://gnso.icann.org/meetings/minutes-gnso-18jan07.shtml that the RN-WG is extended for an additional 30 days starting on 11 April 2007 and ending on 10 May 2007 with the tasks defined in the attached Statement of Work with Philip Sheppard's friendly amendment that the working group include in the statement of work under: Tasks regarding Recommendations, 1,a 1: 'explore the issue around ICANN IANA names' and with the requirement to deliver a final report not later than 10 May 2007. Draft Statement of Work for 30-Day Extension of Reserved Names Working Group (RN-WG) Original RN-WG Statement of Work http://gnso.icann.org/meetings/minutes-gnso-18jan07.shtml will apply as applicable with the following added. General Tasks 1. Define reserved names per direction provided during meetings in Lisbon 2. Reorganize the RN-WG report so that recommendations are grouped in the following categories: a. Reserved name recommendations ready for input into the New gTLD PDP report b. Recommendations for possible use in the New gTLD evaluation process, not as reserved names i. Geographical and geopolitical names ii. Controversial names c. Categories of names deemed to be out of scope for the RN-WG i. Three character names at the third level ii. Registry specific names at the second level iii. Other reserved names at the second level 3. Review GAC Principles for New gTLDs 4. Review IDN-WG Report 5. Add the GAC Principles for New gTLDs to the RN-WG report and reference them in applicable name categories 6. Request that the SSAC identify any possible security or stability issues with regard to RN-WG recommendations as well as suggestions as to how any such issues might be mitigated 7. Use format specifications to be provided by Liz Williams Tasks regarding Recommendations 1. ICANN/IANA reserved names a. Restate recommendations in the RN-WG report so that they can be readily transferred into the New gTLD PDP report i. Explore the issue around ICANN IANA names ii. Confirm that these names are already reserved at the third level for .name and .pro and edit the document accordingly iii. Reword recommendation for “example” at all levels for ASCII and IDN names 1. Provide examples 2. Incorporate any relevant comments from the IDN-WG report iv. Provide a brief rationale in support of the recommendations, referring to the role of the category as applicable b. Finalize guidelines for additional work 2. Use of symbols in Reserved Names a. Restate recommendations in RN-WG report so that they can be readily transferred into the New gTLD PDP, including fine-tuning of language i. Provide examples as possible ii. Maintain status quo for now regarding ASCII names b. Provide a brief rationale in support of the recommendations, referring to the role of the category as applicable 3. Single & two-character reserved names a. Consult further with IDN experts regarding single and two-character IDN names including definition of the term ‘character’ as it relates to non-roman scripts b. Consult further with experts in the technical community regarding single letter ASCII names, single-number ASCII names and two-character ASCII names involving at least one number. c. Consult with the GAC as possible regarding single and two-character IDN names d. Restate recommendations in RN-WG report so that they can be readily transferred into the New gTLD PDP report i. Provide examples as possible for both the top and second levels, ASCII and IDN, single and two-character ii. Incorporate any relevant comments from the IDN-WG report e. Provide a brief rationale in support of the recommendations, referring to the role of the category as applicable f. Finalize guidelines for additional work for ASCII single character names at all levels g. As necessary, finalize guidelines for additional work for IDN single and two-character names at all levels 4. Tagged names a. Restate recommendations in RN-WG report so that they can be readily transferred into the New gTLD PDP report i. To ensure clarity, change all occurrences of ‘in the third and fourth character positions’ to ‘in both the third and fourth character positions’ ii. Move recommendation 2 for IDN gTLDs from ASCII, top level to IDN top level iii. In recommendation 2 for IDN gTLDs, change wording to use the terms ‘ASCII compatible encoding’ and ‘Unicode display form’ iv. Provide examples, including an example of what new applicants for an IDN gTLD would have to provide v. Incorporate any relevant comments from the IDN-WG report b. Provide a brief rationale in support of the recommendations, referring to the role of the category as applicable 5. NIC, Whois and www a. Restate recommendations in RN-WG report so that they can be readily transferred into the New gTLD PDP report i. Provide examples ii. Incorporate any relevant comments from the IDN-WG report b. Provide a brief rationale in support of the recommendations, referring to the role of the category as applicable 6. Geographical & geopolitical names a. Review the GAC Principles for New gTLDs with regard to geographical and geopolitical names b. Consult with WIPO experts regarding geographical and geopolitical names and IGO names c. Consult with the GAC as possible d. Reference the treaty instead of the Guidelines and identify underlying laws if different than a treaty e. Consider restricting the second and third level recommendations to unsponsored gTLDs only f. Restate recommendations in RN-WG report for possible use in the New gTLD evaluation process, not as reserved names i. Describe process flow ii. Provide examples as possible iii. Incorporate any relevant comments from the IDN-WG report g. Provide a brief rationale in support of the recommendations, referring to the role of the category as applicable h. Edit other text of the individual subgroup report as applicable to conform with the fact that geographical and geopolitical names will not be considered reserved names i. Finalize guidelines for additional work as necessary 7. Third level names a. Replace recommendations with a statement about the direction by the Council that this category is not in the scope of the RN-WG b. Edit other text of the individual subgroup report as applicable with the statement regarding scope 8. gTLD names at the 2nd (or 3rd level if applicable) a. Complete consultation with gTLD registries and incorporate final results in the RN-WG report b. Determine whether final recommendations can be made c. State recommendations in RN-WG report so that they can be readily transferred into the New gTLD PDP report i. Provide examples ii. Incorporate any relevant comments from the IDN-WG report d. Provide a brief rationale in support of the recommendations, referring to the role of the category as applicable e. If additional work is needed, finalize guidelines for that work 9. Other names at the second level a. Replace recommendations with a statement about the direction by the Council that this category is not in the scope of the RN-WG b. Edit other text of the individual subgroup report as applicable with the statement regarding scope 10. Controversial names a. Review the GAC Principles for New gTLDs with regard to controversial names b. Consult with the GAC as possible c. Consider the possibility of creating a disputed name list (not a reserved name list) that would be updated whenever controversial names are rejected and would be used for guideline purposes only d. Restate recommendations in RN-WG report for possible use in the New gTLD evaluation process, not as reserved names i. Describe process flow ii. Provide examples as possible iii. Incorporate any relevant comments from the IDN-WG report e. Provide a brief rationale in support of the recommendations, referring to the role of the category as applicable f. Edit other text of the individual subgroup report as applicable to conform with the fact that controversial names will not be considered reserved names g. Finalize guidelines for additional work as necessary Schedule 1. Restart date: Wednesday, 11 April 2. Completion date: Monday, 10 May Please let me know if you would like any changes made. Thank you. Kind regards, Glen -- Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat - ICANN gnso.secretariat[at]gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org

3 2

Additional questions for the GAC?
by Gomes, Chuck April 16, 2007

April 16, 2007

Here are some additional questions regarding the GAC priniciples about new gTLDs that could be considered for our session with the GAC this coming Monday morning. 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."

2 1

Result of election for Board seat #13
by GNSO.SECRETARIAT＠GNSO.ICANN.ORG April 13, 2007

April 13, 2007

Council Members, FYI Subject: Result of election for Board seat #13 Date: Thursday 12 April 2007 From: Glen de Saint Géry To: John O Jeffrey Esq., Cc: Bruce Tonkin, Denise Michel To: ICANN’s General Counsel and Secretary From: GNSO Secretariat Dear John, The GNSO Council in its meeting on Thursday 12 April, formally ratified the email vote for Board seat #13. The results of the email vote were: Bruce Tonkin 21 votes for, 3 abstentions, 3 votes not cast. Thus Dr Bruce Tonkin was declared elected to Board seat #13, under the ICANN Bylaws, Article X, Section 3, Clause 6. from 8 June 2007 until 6 months after the conclusion of the Annual Meeting in 2009. Regards, Glen Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat - ICANN gnso.secretariat[at]gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

Election results Board seat #13
by GNSO.SECRETARIAT＠GNSO.ICANN.ORG April 13, 2007

April 13, 2007

[To: council[at]icann.org] Dear Council Members, Results of Election Board seat # 13 are as follows: SERIAL NUMBER: 7f01ece1b04 3 people did not vote by ballot. The details are: 1. Bruce Tonkin was not replaced by the Registrar constituency. (2 votes) 2. One Council member did not return a ballot and could not be contacted. (1 vote) One Council member did not return a ballot and under special circumstances, voted by email and phone before the close of the vote on 9 April at 17:00 UTC. (1 vote) Total votes 21 votes for Bruce Tonkin 3 abstentions 3 votes not cast The total number of votes that Council could cast is 27 and a majority is 14 or more. Please check that your vote has been correctly recorded. Bruce Tonkin is thus elected by the GNSO to the ICANN Board of Directors subject to this vote being confirmed by the GNSO Council at the meeting on 12 April 2007 at 12:00 UTC. Please let me know whether you will be attending the meeting as quorum is important to confirm the vote. Any questions regarding the election or this vote should be addressed to: <gnso-elections(a)icann.org> Thank you. Kind regards. Glen Hand count: FOR BRUCE TONKIN (Hand count, including one ballot that was human readable but generated a parse error in the votebot:) 1 [X] FOR Bruce Tonkin 2 [x] FOR Bruce Tonkin 3 [x] FOR Bruce Tonkin 4 [X] FOR Bruce Tonkin 5 [X] FOR Bruce Tonkin 6 [X] FOR Bruce Tonkin 7 [X] FOR Bruce Tonkin 8 [X] FOR Bruce Tonkin 9 [X] FOR Bruce Tonkin 10 [X] FOR Bruce Tonkin 11 [X] FOR Bruce Tonkin 12 [x] FOR Bruce Tonkin 13 [X] FOR Bruce Tonkin 14 [X] FOR Bruce Tonkin 15 [X] FOR Bruce Tonkin 16 [X] ABSTAIN 17 [X] ABSTAIN 18 [X] ABSTAIN 18 Total, 15 FOR, 3 ABSTAIN BALLOT NUMBER: Baa6c128d7D BALLOT NUMBER: B953eefff6D BALLOT NUMBER: B6f4f999eeD BALLOT NUMBER: B23af3d458D BALLOT NUMBER: B7f909f761D BALLOT NUMBER: B79d5abe0cD BALLOT NUMBER: B3cc8a61a9D BALLOT NUMBER: B667dccf7aD BALLOT NUMBER: Bb8561c963D BALLOT NUMBER: B3560d47d0D BALLOT NUMBER: B7a153248dD BALLOT NUMBER: Ba556d2c60D BALLOT NUMBER: Bb4541ae55D BALLOT NUMBER: Bb5aa97576D BALLOT NUMBER: Bdfa982a9aD ...................................................................... ABSTAIN BALLOT NUMBER: B1b0926b35D BALLOT NUMBER: Bd4efc03f9D BALLOT NUMBER: Bafd9e646fD ....................................................................... 18 Total, 15 FOR, 3 ABSTAIN Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat - ICANN gnso.secretariat[at]gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

GNSO Council teleconference MP3 April 12 2007
by GNSO.SECRETARIAT＠GNSO.ICANN.ORG April 13, 2007

April 13, 2007

[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 April 12, 2007 at: http://gnso-audio.icann.org/GNSO-Council-20070412.mp3 http://gnso.icann.org/calendar/index.html#apr Happy listening! -- Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat - ICANN gnso.secretariat[at]gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org

2 1

IGO LIST
by Anthony Harris April 13, 2007

April 13, 2007

See http://www.library.northwestern.edu/govinfo/resource/internat/igo.html Tony Harris

4 3

Draft GNSO San Juan meeting agenda
by GNSO.SECRETARIAT＠GNSO.ICANN.ORG April 12, 2007

April 12, 2007

Dear Council Members, Attached please find a draft skeleton GNSO San Juan meeting agenda. The general meeting plan will follow the same structure as the Lisbon meeting. The meeting with the GAC has been planned in consultation with the GNSO Council and GAC chairs. Please send your comments. The purpose of the draft schedule is to give enough time for planning ahead. Thank you. Kind regards. Glen Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat - ICANN gnso.secretariat[at]gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org

2 1

Revised SoW for RN-WG 30-day Extension
by Gomes, Chuck April 12, 2007

April 12, 2007

I have attached a red-line version of the RN-WG 30-day extension SoW that shows the changes made and approved in our meeting earlier today. I also attached a clean, final version. Note that Mike approved the edits made. 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

RE: [council] Draft Charter for new Whois Working Group
by Ute Decker April 12, 2007

April 12, 2007

Thanks to Maria for the WHOIS working group charter. I think the wording of the objective under (3) is open enough to accommodate the outline for the WG the Council already agreed. Given the role of the Council as a policy setting committee it would seem odd for us to look at implementation issues only. I also don't see a reason to change 4 (b) - I am reasonably confident that the phrase 'how third parties may access registration data' in 4 (b) par. 1 assumes the WG will also discuss mechanisms to determine WHO can have access in that manner - as a matter of fact it seems impossible to discuss one without the other. The reference to the GAC policy principles under 4(b) is obviously crucial. These have just come out and at Council level we cannot ignore them - I also believe we decided in Marrakech that the Council would discuss WHOIS building on the task force report and in the light of the GAC principles. Best wishes Ute -----Original Message----- From: owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Robin Gross Sent: 11 April 2007 19:50 To: Maria Farrell; 'Council GNSO' Subject: Re: [council] Draft Charter for new Whois Working Group NCUC amends this motion to include one additional point of clarification that is necessary to keep this working group focused. The objective proposed in the draft charter is badly worded because it would allow for each and every recommendation of the previous whois task force to be revisited ("examine the issues raised with respect to the policy recommendation of the task force and make recommendations concerning how those policies may be improved...). This new working group is not meant to "undo" the three years of work on the whois task force. Therefore it is important that we keep this new working group on track by more clearly stating the objective. NCUC proposes to amend the basic objective [new words in CAPS] as follows: "The objective of the working group is to examine the IMPLEMENTATION issues raised BY the recommendED OPOC PROPOSAL of the task force, and make recommendations concerning how THE OPOC PROPOSAL may be IMPLEMENTED IN A WAY TO ADDRESS THOSE ISSUES." Thank you, Robin Robin Gross wrote: > In considering this WG charter April 12, NCUC moves to amend it as > follows: > > Under section 4b, Change the sentence "Determine how third parties may > access > registration data that is no longer available for unrestricted public > query-based access for legitimate activities." > to... > Determine which third parties, under which conditions, may access > registration data that is no longer available for unrestricted public > query-based access." > Also, strike the 8 paragraphs beginning "The GAC policy > principles...." > > Reason: > The opening sentence of 4b reads as if ANY third party will be given > access to the data for any activity. But this begs the policy question > that the WG must answer, which is WHICH third parties (e.g., just law > enforcement agencies, or others) and under WHAT CONDITIONS. > > As for the second change, having discussed this with GAC members, the > objections of the EU to the language was resolved by stating that some > of the ACTIVITIES that Whois data was used for was legitimate, but this > did not necessarily mean that ACCESS TO THE PRIVATE DATA was also > legitimate. Also, the Whois task force has already determined that the > purpose of Whois does not include many of these activities, so there is > no obligation on ICANN to make the data available for those activities. > > > Thank you, > Robin > > > Ross Rader wrote: > >> Maria - >> >> Many thanks for turning this around so quickly. The draft is >> generally great. I'd like to suggest that the section entitled "work >> plan" uses the relevant text of the resolution instead of the >> language currently employed. In a couple of places, the work plan >> outlines a much greater scope of work than that contemplated by the >> resolutions, specifically; >> >> 4.a proposed expands the examination of the definition of the roles >> to all contacts, whereas the resolution only sought to examine the >> definition of the operational point of contact. >> >> 4.b proposed requests the WG to determine how third parties may >> access unpublished data for legitimate activities, whereas the >> resolution only seeks to describe how legitimate interests will >> access unpublished data. The difference seems small, but the >> proposed language requests the creation of a comprehensive proposal >> that describes an access mechanism for a long list of "legitimate >> activities" rather than a proposal that describes an access >> mechanism for use by legitimate interests. >> >> 4.c proposed additionally requests the WG to determine how the >> distinctions should be made whereas the Council resolution only >> sought to discover if the distinctions in question were possible to >> make. >> >> In each of these cases, it might just make the most sense to rely on >> the text of the original resolution as ratified by Council to ensure >> that we don't lose clarity on our actual objectives. >> >> Second, a question. Concerning the issue of defining agreement. When >> it comes to understanding what constitutes "broad agreement", will >> this be measured on the views shared by individuals or interest groups? >> >> Finally, in order to ensure that we're all working from the same >> foundation, it might make sense to specifically include the policy >> recommendations of the task force in the document itself, either as >> a summary, or an annex that we can easily refer to. The policy >> recommendations that I am referring to are included in section 4 of >> the report, as per the clarifications I made during our discuss at >> the recent Council meeting. >> >> Thanks again, >> >> -ross >> >> >> >> On 30-Mar-07, at 2:51 PM, Maria Farrell wrote: >> >>> Dear Council members, >>> >>> Attached is the draft Charter that sets out the statement of work and >>> working methodologies of the Whois Working Group, created by >>> resolution of >>> the GNSO Council in Lisbon, on 28 March. >>> >>> Please review it and note that it will be an agenda item for >>> discussion and >>> adoption at the next Council meeting on 12 April. >>> >>> Also, please email this list if you wish to be on the Working >>> Group, and >>> feel free to to put any interested constituency members or outside >>> experts >>> in touch with me for further information. >>> >>> All the best, Maria >>> <Whois Working Group Charter2.doc> >> >> >> >> Ross Rader >> Director, Retail Services >> t. 416.538.5492 >> c. 416.828.8783 >> http://www.domaindirect.com >> >> "To solve the problems of today, we must focus on tomorrow." >> - Erik Nupponen >> >> >> >> >> > >

1 0

Draft minutes of the GNSO Council meeting in Lisbon on 28 March 2007.
by GNSO.SECRETARIAT＠GNSO.ICANN.ORG April 12, 2007

April 12, 2007

[To: council(a)gnso.icann.org] Dear Council Members, Please find the draft minutes of the GNSO Council meeting in Lisbon on 28 March 2007. Please let me know if you would like any changes made. Thank you. Kind regards. Glen .................................................................... 28 March 2007 Proposed agenda and related documents List of attendees: Philip Sheppard - Commercial & Business Users C. Mike Rodenbaugh - Commercial & Business Users C. Alistair Dixon - Commercial & Business Users C - remote participation Greg Ruth - ISCPC Antonio Harris - ISCPC Tony Holmes - ISCPC - absent - apologies Thomas Keller- Registrars Ross Rader - Registrars Bruce Tonkin - Registrars Chuck Gomes - gTLD registries Edmon Chung - gTLD registries Cary Karp - gTLD registries Kristina Rosette - Intellectual Property Interests C Ute Decker - Intellectual Property Interests C Kiyoshi Tsuru - Intellectual Property Interests C - absent Robin Gross - NCUC.- absent - apologies Norbert Klein - NCUC. Mawaki Chango - NCUC - absent - apologies Sophia Bekele - Nominating Committee appointee Jon Bing - Nominating Committee appointee Avri Doria - Nominating Committee appointee 17 Council Members (23 Votes - quorum) ICANN Staff Dan Halloran - Deputy General Counsel Denise Michel - Vice President, Policy Development Olof Nordling - Manager, Policy Development Coordination Liz Williams - Senior Policy Counselor Maria Farrell - GNSO Policy Officer Karen Lentz - gTLD Registry Liaison Glen de Saint Géry - GNSO Secretariat GNSO Council Liaisons Suzanne Sene - GAC Liaison - absent - apologies Alan Greenberg - ALAC Liaison Quorum present at 10:00 UTC. Transcript Bruce Tonkin chaired this meeting Approval of the agenda Item 1: Update any Statements of Interest No updates Item 2: Approval of the GNSO Council minutes of 15 March 2007 Chuck Gomes moved the adoption of the GNSO Council minutes of 15 March 2007 Motion approved. Tom Keller abstained Approval of the GNSO Council minutes of 15 March 2007 Decision 1: The GNSO Council minutes of 15 March 2007 were adopted. Item 3: WHOIS PDP - summarise outcome of meeting with the GAC - next steps - consider forming an implementation working group to resolve implementation details of concern to some constituencies around OPoC Bruce Tonkin summarised the WHOIS situation. Registrars were currently contractually required to: - provide adequate contact information to facilitate timely resolution of any problems that arise in connection with the registered name - take reasonable precautions to protect personal data from loss, misuse, unauthorized access or disclosure, alteration or destruction. Issues arose with the implementation, specified in the Registrars contract, of the above requirements. One implementation issue was that the data be freely available via the port-43, an IETF standard protocol and a second one was that data be available on the worldwide Web based query access via a Web site. The present implementation makes it difficult to protect personal data. The WHOIS task force had attempted to improve the effectiveness of WHOIS services while taking into account the need to ensure privacy protection for the personal data of natural persons. Contention arose around the purpose of WHOIS, and if there were a change in access, how would those who needed to contact people be able to do so acceptably. The WHOIS task force has basically put forward two proposals, the Operational point of Contact Proposal and the Special circumstances proposal, neither of which has received support from more than three of the six GNSO constituencies. The operational point of contact proposal has a simple majority of support within the WHOIS task force. The options open to the Council would be to submit the report to the ICANN Board for a decision or to consider forming one or more working groups to engage in further study to get stronger support for the recommendations presented to the ICANN Board. There was general agreement to form a single working group for further study. The Council passed the following resolution: The GNSO Council resolves: 1) To acknowledge the completion of the Whois TF work and note we have received and discussed their report, and thank the task force for their work 2) To create a working group of affected stakeholders: - including GNSO constituency, law enforcement and community participants, - whose work is to be completed within 120 days - that will work to examine the issues raised with respect to the policy recommendations of the task force and make recommendations concerning how those policies may be improved to address these issues, namely: a. define the roles, responsibilities, and requirements of the operational point of contact, and what happens if they are not fulfilled. b. how legitimate interests will access registration data no longer published via Whois, c. whether a distinction should be made between the registration contact information published based on the nature of the registered name holder (for example, legal vs. natural persons) or its use of the domain name. The motion carried by 20 votes in favour. Kristina Rosette, and Avri Doria, voted against the motion. Ute Decker had already left the meeting at the time of the vote, but requested that her vote against the motion be noted. Decision 3 The GNSO Council resolves: 1) To acknowledge the completion of the Whois TF work and note we have received and discussed their report, and thank the task force for their work 2) To create a working group of affected stakeholders: - including GNSO constituency, law enforcement and community participants, - whose work is to be completed within 120 days - that will work to examine the issues raised with respect to the policy recommendations of the task force and make recommendations concerning how those policies may be improved to address these issues, namely: a. define the roles, responsibilities, and requirements of the operational point of contact, and what happens if they are not fulfilled. b. how legitimate interests will access registration data no longer published via Whois, c. whether a distinction should be made between the registration contact information published based on the nature of the registered name holder (for example, legal vs. natural persons) or its use of the domain name. Item 4. any other business Alan Greenberg, ALAC liaison to the GNSO Council, drew attention to the fact that the ALAC was preparing to ask the ICANN staff to produce an issues report on the add-grace period, and invited GNSO constituency members to assist. Bruce Tonkin formally closed the meeting and thanked everyone for their participation. The meeting ended: 12 :20 UTC Next GNSO Council teleconference will be on 12 April 2007 at 12:00 UTC. see: Calendar Summary of Work Items arising from the minutes: 1. Bruce Tonkin, in collaboration with the ICANN staff, to create a Statement of work for the WHOIS working group to be approved at the next Council meeting on 12 April 2007 -- Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat - ICANN gnso.secretariat[at]gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org

1 0