March 2011 - council - lists.icann.org

Motion to Adopt GNSO WG Guidelines
by Neuman, Jeff 09 Mar '11

09 Mar '11

All, As discussed on the last teleconference, I have gone back to the PPSC to get their final sign off on the proposed edits reflecting the last round of comments on the GNSO WG Guidelines. I have enclosed a clean word and pfd version of the final report as well as a redline of the changes made since the final report went out for public comment. Please find below the proposed motion to approve the report and its recommendations. ++++++++++++++++++++++++ WHEREAS, in October 2008, the GNSO Council established a framework (see GNSO Council Improvement Implementation Plan; (http://www.icann.org/en/topics/gnso-improvements/gnso-improvements-implemen…) for implementing the various GNSO Improvements identified and approved by the ICANN Board of Directors on 26 June 2008 (http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/resolutions-26jun08.htm#_Toc76113182) (http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/resolutions-26jun08.htm); WHEREAS, that framework included the formation, in January 2009, of two Steering Committees, the Operations Steering Committee (OSC) and the Policy Process Steering Committee (PPSC), to charter and coordinate the efforts of five community work teams in developing specific recommendations to implement the improvements; WHEREAS, the PPSC established two work teams, including the Working Group Work Team (WG WT), which was chartered to develop a new GNSO Working Group Model that improves inclusiveness, improves effectiveness, and improves efficiency; WHEREAS, the WG WT completed its deliberations and forwarded the GNSO Working Group Guidelines to the PPSC on 1 November 2010; WHEREAS, the PPSC reviewed and approved the GNSO Working Group Guidelines on 20 December 2010 http://gnso.icann.org/improvements/gnso-working-group-guidelines-final-10de… and forwarded the report to the GNSO Council on 1 January 2011; WHEREAS, the GNSO Council initiated a 21-day public comment period (see http://www.icann.org/en/public-comment/#gnso-wg-guidelines) on the proposed GNSO Working Guidelines and has requested the PPSC to review the comments received and make any changes it deems appropriate; WHEREAS, the PPSC has made changes it deemed appropriate following review of the public comments and has submitted this updated version [include link] to the GNSO Council for its consideration; NOW THEREFORE, BE IT: RESOLVED that the GNSO Council adopts the GNSO Working Group Guidelines as proposed by the PPSC [include link] and instructs ICANN staff to incorporate the GNSO Working Group Guidelines into a new version of the GNSO Operating Procedures (GOP), which becomes effective immediately upon adoption. RESOLVED, that each Working Group formed after the date of this resolution shall utilize the GNSO Working Group Guidelines. Jeffrey J. Neuman Neustar, Inc. / Vice President, Law & Policy 46000 Center Oak Plaza Sterling, VA 20166 Office: +1.571.434.5772 Mobile: +1.202.549.5079 Fax: +1.703.738.7965 / jeff.neuman(a)neustar.biz<mailto:jeff.neuman@neustar.biz> / www.neustar.biz<http://www.neustar.biz/> ________________________________ The information contained in this e-mail message is intended only for the use of the recipient(s) named above and may contain confidential and/or privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient you have received this e-mail message in error and any review, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately and delete the original message.

2 1

Updated GNSO Open Council Meeting Agenda - San Francisco
by Glen de Saint Géry 09 Mar '11

09 Mar '11

GNSO Council Public Meeting - San Francisco Silicon Valley http://gnso.icann.org/meetings/agenda-council-16mar11-en.htm https://st.icann.org/gnso-council/index.cgi?proposed_agenda_16_march_2011 16 March 2011, Reference to ICANN Schedule http://svsf40.icann.org/node/22187 Proposed Agenda for the GNSO Council Public Meeting in San Francisco, Silicon Valley 16 March 2011. Note that this agenda may be updated as more information becomes available so interested parties are encouraged to periodically check for the latest updates on the GNSO Council Workspace at As can be seen below, in addition to the Open Microphone at the end of the agenda, as possible throughout the meeting time will be allowed for audience participation. Please be aware that audience opportunities to comment will depend on available time. Meeting Times Coordinated Universal Time:20:30 UTC - see below for local times (13:30 San Francisco, 16:30 Washington DC, 20:30 London, 21:30 Brussels 17 March 2011 01:30 Karachi, 05:30 Tokyo, 07:30 Melbourne This agenda was established according to the GNSO Council Operating Procedures approved 5 August 2010 for the GNSO Council. http://gnso.icann.org/council/gnso-op-procedures-05aug10-en.pdf For convenience: * An excerpt of the ICANN Bylaws defining the voting thresholds is provided in Appendix 1 at the end of this agenda. * An excerpt from the Council Operating Procedures defining the absentee voting procedures is provided in Appendix 2 at the end of this agenda. (Insert links to meeting audio-cast and Adobe connect as applicable.) 1. Administrative Matters (10 minutes) a. Roll call of Council members, noting alternates and proxies (Glen) b. Polling for Disclosures of Interest i. Per the GNSO Operating Procedures, Section 5.4, we are required to poll Councilors regarding "any direct or indirect interests that may affect a Relevant Party's judgment on an issue that is under review, consideration, or discussion" in this meeting. ii. Here is the definition provided in the procedures: "Disclosure of Interest: Relevant to a specific issue at a specific time. A written statement made by a Relevant Party of direct and indirect interests that may be commercial (e.g. monetary payment) or non-commercial (e.g. non-tangible benefit such as publicity, political or academic visibility) and may affect, or be perceived to affect, the Relevant Party's judgment on a specific issue." iii. The main issues for this meeting are: * GNSO Project Decision Making * New gTLD Applicant Guidebook * Joint New gTLD Applicant Support Recommendations * Recommendations re. Registration Abuse Policies * Joint DNS Security and Stability Analysis Working Group Charter * Whois & Internationalized Registration Data * GNSO Improvements b. Update any statements of interest c. Review/amend agenda d. Note the status of minutes for the previous Council meeting per the GNSO Operating Procedures: .24 February 2011 meeting minutes: Scheduled for approval on 11 March 2010 Item 2: WHOIS Service Requirements Report - Update Liz Gasster (25 minutes) Motion 1 https://st.icann.org/gnso-council/index.cgi?16_march_motions Discussion * Council * Audience * Vote Motion 2 https://st.icann.org/gnso-council/index.cgi?16_march_motions Discussion * Council * Audience * Vote Item 3: PPSC Proposed GNSO Working Group Guidelines (25minutes) * Refer to: resolution 13 Jan meeting http://gnso.icann.org/resolutions/#201101 * See public comments received (http://forum.icann.org/lists/gnso-wg-guidelines/) as well as summary & analysis provided by staff * Refer to Council discussion during Feb 24 meeting. PPSC Chair has relayed comments received on the report back to the PPSC with a goal of finalizing the report so the Council can vote to approve it in San Francisco. 3.1 Refer to motion 3 https://st.icann.org/gnso-council/index.cgi?16_march_motions 3. 2 Discussion * Council Audience 3.3 Vote Item 4: Cartagena Board Resolution on Consumer Choice, Competition and Innovation (30 minutes) Refer to Board resolution: http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/resolutions-10dec10-en.htm#6 Rosemary Sinclair has volunteered to lead. A proposed response has been drafted to send to the Board. 4.1 Update from Rosemary Sinclair and analysis of proposed response. 4. 2 Discussion * Council * Audience 4. 3 Next steps? Is there consensus on sending the response to the Board as proposed and drafted? Item 5: Joint DNS security and stability analysis working group (DSSA-WG) (25 minutes) At their meetings during the ICANN Brussels meeting ALAC, the ccNSO, the GNSO, the GAC and the NRO acknowledged the need for a better understanding of the security and stability of the global DNS. To this end these SOs and ACs agreed to establish a joint DNS Security and Stability Working Group (DSSA-WG). Refer to DSSA-WG draft charter http://www.ccnso.icann.org/workinggroups/dssa-draft-charter-12nov10-en.pdf ccNSO has agreed to a maximum of 12 volunteers from the GNSO. Current GNSO volunteers: * Zahid Jamil- (CBUC) * Scott McCormick - (CBUC) * Mikey O'Connor - (CBUC) * Adam Palmer- (CBUC Symantec) * George Asare-Sakyi - (NCSG) * Rafik Dammak - (NCSG) * Matt Serlin - (MarkMonitor, RrSG) * Rick Wilhelm (Networksolutions RrSG) * Greg Aaron- (Afilias, RySG) * Keith Drazek- (Verisign, RySG) * Don Blumenthal - (PIR, RySG) * Mike Rodenbaugh - (IPC) * Chris Wright - (RrSG) * Forest Rosen - * Rossella Mattioli - (NCSG) 5.1 Finalise list of volunteers 5. 2 Selection of GNSO co-chair for the WG. Item 6: Study Group on Use of Names of Countries and Territories (15 minutes) The call for volunteers for this group has now closed. The ccNSO has agreed to a maximum of 8 volunteers from the GNSO. Current GNSO volunteers: Carlos Aguirre - GNSO Nominationg Committee Appointee George Asare-Sakyi - NCSG Ilya Bazlyankov - RrSG Olga Cavalli - GNSO Nominationg Committee Appointee Ching Chiao - RySG - Liaison for GNSO Council Avri Doria - NCSG Jothan Frakes - Volker Greimann - RrSG Jean Guillon - Tony Harris- ISPCP Garth Miller - Krista Papac - RrSG Alexei Sozonov - RrSG 6.1 Update from Liz Gasster 6.2 Discussion * Council * Audience 6.3 Select 8 volunteers to be put forward to ccNSO. Item 7: Follow-up on RAP recommendations (30 minutes) See next step suggestions from previous meetings: * Provide an outline of topics to be addressed in the UDRP Issues paper and the discussion paper on the creation of non-binding best practices to help registrars and registries address the abusive registrations of domain names in accordance with the Registration Abuse Policies Working Group Final Report. * Seek input or comments from the Council during the GNSO weekend working sessions. 7.1 Update from Liz Gasster Motion 4 https://st.icann.org/gnso-council/index.cgi?16_march_motions 7.2 Discussion * Council * Audience * Vote Motion 5 https://st.icann.org/gnso-council/index.cgi?16_march_motions 7.3 Discussion * Council * Audience * Vote 7.4 Next steps Item 8: Pending Projects - GNSO Toolkit of services (25 minutes) Update on this work. The "toolkit" refers to a list of basic services approved by the GNSO Council 17 Dec 2009 that will be made available to eligible GNSO organizations. Implementation proposals have been discussed and feedback requested by Feb 15, 2011. Refer to GNSO Pending Projects list http://gnso.icann.org/meetings/pending-projects-list.pdf. 8. 1 Update on work, indication of proposed next steps - Rob Hoggarth, ICANN Staff 8. 2 Discussion * Council * Audience 8. 3 Next steps Item 9. Other Business (5 minutes) Item 10. Open Microphone (30 minutes) Appendix 1: GNSO Council Voting Thresholds (ICANN Bylaws, Article X, Section 3) 9. Except as otherwise specified in these Bylaws, Annex A hereto, or the GNSO Operating Procedures, the default threshold to pass a GNSO Council motion or other voting action requires a simple majority vote of each House. The voting thresholds described below shall apply to the following GNSO actions: 1. Create an Issues Report: requires an affirmative vote of more than 25% vote of each House or majority of one House; 2. Initiate a Policy Development Process ("PDP") Within Scope (as described in Annex A): requires an affirmative vote of more than 33% of each House or more than 66% of one House; 3. Initiate a PDP Not Within Scope: requires an affirmative vote of more than 75% of one House and a majority of the other House ("GNSO Supermajority"); 4. Approve a PDP Recommendation Without a GNSO Supermajority: requires an affirmative vote of a majority of each House and further requires that one GNSO Council member representative of at least 3 of the 4 Stakeholder Groups supports the Recommendation; 5. Approve a PDP Recommendation With a GNSO Supermajority: requires an affirmative vote of a GNSO Supermajority; and 6. Approve a PDP Recommendation Imposing New Obligations on Certain Contracting Parties: where an ICANN contract provision specifies that "a two-thirds vote of the council" demonstrates the presence of a consensus, the GNSO Supermajority vote threshold will have to be met or exceeded with respect to any contracting party affected by such contract provision. Appendix 2: Absentee Voting Procedures (Council Operating Procedures 4.4) Members that are absent from a meeting at the time of a vote on the following items may vote by absentee ballot: 1. Initiate a policy development process; 2. Forward a policy recommendation to the Board; 3. Recommend amendments to the ICANN Bylaws; 4. Fill a position open for election. The GNSO Secretariat will provide reasonable means for transmitting and authenticating absentee ballots, which could include voting by telephone, e- mail, or web-based interface. Absentee ballots must be submitted within 72 hours following the start of the meeting in which a vote is initiated, except that, in exceptional circumstances announced at the time of the vote, the Chair may reduce this time to 24 hours or extend the time to 7 days. There must be a quorum for the meeting in which the vote is initiated. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Local time between October and March, Winter in the NORTHERN hemisphere ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Reference (Coordinated Universal Time) UTC 20:30 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- California, USA (PST) UTC-8+0DST 13:30 New York/Washington DC, USA (EST) UTC-5+0DST 16:30 Buenos Aires, Argentina (ART) UTC-3+0DST 17:30 Rio de Janeiro/Sao Paulo Brazil (BRST) UTC-2+1DST 17:30 London, United Kingdom (BST) UTC+0DST 20:30 Darmstadt, Germany (CET) UTC+1+0DST 21:30 Paris, France (CET) UTC+1+0DST 21:30 Karachi, Pakistan (PKT) UTC+5+0DST 01:30 next day Hong Kong, China (HKT) UTC+8+0DST 04:30 next day Tokyo, Japan (JST) UTC+9+0DST 05:30 next day Melbourne,/Sydney Australia (EDT) UTC+10+1DST 07:30 next day ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- The DST starts/ends on last Sunday of March 2011, 2:00 or 3:00 local time (with exceptions) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For other places see http://www.timeanddate.com Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org

2 1

RAA Motion
by Mary.Wong＠law.unh.edu 09 Mar '11

09 Mar '11

Fellow Councilors: I'd like to propose a motion picking up on the RAA issue that (aside from the Registrant Rights Charter issue, which we voted on) we tabled in Cartagena: Motion to Approve a Proposal in the Final Report of the Drafting Team on the Registrar Accreditation Agreement (RAA) regarding a Process for Amendments to the RAA Whereas, on 4 March 2009, the GNSO Council approved the form of the 2009 Registrar Accreditation Agreement (RAA) developed as a result of a lengthy consultative process initiated by ICANN; Whereas, in addition to approving the 2009 RAA, on 4 March 2009 the GNSO Council convened a joint drafting team with members of the At-Large Community, to conduct further work related to improvements to the RAA; specifically to: (a) draft a charter identifying registrant rights and responsibilities; and (b) develop a specific process to identify additional potential amendments to the RAA on which further action may be desirable; Whereas, on 18 October 2010, the Joint GNSO/ALAC RAA Drafting Team published its Final Report describing specific recommendations and proposals to the GNSO Council for improvements to the RAA; Whereas, the GNSO Council has reviewed the Final Report and, in its resolution 20110113-2, the GNSO Council approved of the Form of Registrant Rights and Responsibilities Charter as described in Annex D of the Final Report and recommended that Staff commence the consultation process with Registrars in the RAA to finalize the Registrant Rights and Responsibilities Charter for posting on the websites of Registrars as specified in Section 3.15 of the RAA; Whereas, the GNSO Council desires to approve some of the other recommendations and proposals contained in the Final Report. NOW THEREFORE BE IT: RESOLVED, that the GNSO Council recommends that ICANN Staff adopt the process specified as Process A in the Final Report, to develop a new form of RAA with respect to the High and Medium Priority topics described in the Final Report. Process A states: “1. Prioritized list of topics goes to GNSO Council (i.e., final form of this report). Staff and council review may filter out topics that fall under consensus policy. 2. Negotiations begin with negotiation group consisting of Staff, the Registrars (as a whole, not individually), and certain observers representing the interests of affected non-parties to the agreement. 3. During negotiations, if Staff and Registrars agree, parties may vote to hold discussions on specified topics in executive session (excluding observers), then reporting back to the full negotiation group re progress. 4. Negotiating group reports to GNSO and ALAC, or to the public periodically (such as monthly) on status and progress. Negotiating group is expected to make bracketed text, and/or agreed items, available for public comment and feedback. 5. Negotiating group reviews comments and continues negotiations and repeat step 4 as necessary. 6. Staff and Registrars, after consultation with observers, determine when full final draft of new RAA is ready to be posted for public comment. 7. GNSO Council reviews and considers public comments and votes on approval of the RAA. GNSO Supermajority Vote to be obtained in favor of the new form. 8. If Council approves, the new RAA goes to Board for approval. 9. If Council does not approve, goes back to negotiation team with appropriate feedback for reconsideration. Repeat from step 6.” RESOLVED FURTHER, that the GNSO Council recommends that this process be initiated by ICANN immediately. Cheers Mary Mary W S Wong Professor of Law Chair, Graduate IP Programs UNIVERSITY OF NEW HAMPSHIRE SCHOOL OF LAWTwo White StreetConcord, NH 03301USAEmail: mary.wong(a)law.unh.eduPhone: 1-603-513-5143Webpage: http://www.law.unh.edu/marywong/index.phpSelected writings available on the Social Science Research Network (SSRN) at: http://ssrn.com/author=437584

3 3

A WhoIs motion for our meeting in San Francisco
by john＠crediblecontext.com 08 Mar '11

08 Mar '11

3 2

TOPICS - Agenda Board meeting with GNSO Council - Sunday March 13, 4pm 5:30 pm
by Olga Cavalli 07 Mar '11

07 Mar '11

Dear Council Members, This is the list of topics proposed for the Board/GNSO meeting: - Consumer Choice, Competition and Innovation: context of the Board resolution - CWGs and how the Board views them - New TLDs. Role of the GNSO community in addressing items that come out of the GAC/BD discussions on new gTLDs Please let me know if I have forgotten something or if I have captured well your ideas. Best regards Olga

7 10

Response from ICANN Compliance re. RAP recommendations
by Marika Konings 07 Mar '11

07 Mar '11

Dear All, Please find attached the response from ICANN's Compliance Department in relation to resolved #1 of the recently adopted motion on the Registration Abuse Policies Working Group Final Report (RESOLVED #1, the GNSO Council instructs ICANN Policy Staff to forward the two issues identified by the RAP IDT as having low resource requirements, WHOIS Access recommendation #2 and Fake Renewal Notices recommendation #1, to ICANN Compliance Staff for resolution. ICANN Compliance Staff is requested to provide the GNSO Council with its feedback on the two recommendations and proposed implementation in a timely manner). Pam Little, Interim Head of Contractual Compliance, is not available to participate in the Council meeting coming Thursday, but she is happy to take further comments / questions by email. In addition, she has indicated that she is available to discuss the response and any further questions in person with the Council during the weekend session at the ICANN meeting in San Francisco, if required. With best regards, Marika

4 6

FW: Proposed Topics - Agenda Board meeting with GNSO Council - Sunday March 13, 4pm 5:30 pm
by Glen de Saint Géry 07 Mar '11

07 Mar '11

FYI From: gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org<mailto:gnso.secretariat@gnso.icann.org> Sent: dimanche 6 mars 2011 21:43 To: Secretary Cc: David Olive; Stéphane Van Gelder; Neuman, Jeff; Mary.Wong(a)law.unh.edu; Liz Gasster; Glen de Saint Gery Subject: Proposed Topics - Agenda Board meeting with GNSO Council - Sunday March 13, 4pm 5:30 pm Dear Diane, On behalf of the GNSO Council chair, Stéphane van Gelder, the GNSO Council would like to submit the following two topics for discussion with the Board for the joint Board/GNSO meeting on Sunday, March 13, at 4pm-5:30pm. 1. Consumer Choice, Competition and Innovation: context of the Board resolution http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/resolutions-10dec10-en.htm#6 2. The role of the GNSO community in addressing any new items that come out of the GAC/BD discussions on new gTLDs. More specifically, to the extent that there are any inconsistencies between the policy advice given by the GNSO and what the ICANN Board agrees to with the GAC, how will those matters be handled. Also, how should the GNSO community factor GAC advice earlier into the policy development process, and should it try to?" Thank you for your assistance in transmitting this to the Board. Respectfully submitted. Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org<mailto:gnso.secretariat@gnso.icann.org> http://gnso.icann.org

2 1

Response from the Board to the GAC on Brussels consultation
by Bruce Tonkin 06 Mar '11

06 Mar '11

Hello All, See: http://www.icann.org/en/correspondence/dengate-thrush-to-dryden-05mar11- en.pdf This contains a letter from the ICANN Board Chair to the CHair of the GAC, and also contains the Board's thinking on the GAC scorecard provided for the Brussels consultation. Regards, Bruce Tonkin

1 0

Agenda for ICANN Board meeting on 18 March 2011
by Bruce Tonkin 06 Mar '11

06 Mar '11

Hello All, See below for an agenda for the upcoming Board meeting. Regards, Bruce Tonkin From: http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/agenda-18mar11-en.htm 1. Consent Agenda ================= a. Approval of Minutes of 25 January 2011 ICANN Special Board Meeting b. From SSAC - Approval of Changes to Membership c. Approval of VeriSign RSEP request (for .NAME) for release of numeric-only strings and numeric strings with hyphens d. From the SIC - ccNSO Review - receipt of Board WG final report and dissolution of the WG e. From the SIC - Approval of Revision of Bylaws re implementation of SSAC Review Working Group Report f. From the BGC - Approval of membership of IDN Variants Working Group g. From the BFC - Approval of Investment Management Firm h. Approval of Location of ICANN Public Meeting in Africa - October 2011 i. Approval of Location of ICANN Public Meeting in North America - October 2012 j. Approval of ICANN Public Meeting Dates for 2014-2016 Main Agenda =========== 2. 2011-2014 Strategic Plan - for approval 3. Outcome of Bylaw Consultation with the GAC on the new gTLD Program 4. Outcome of Bylaw Consultation with the GAC on ICM Registry 5. AOC Reviews including ATRT Recommendations 6. From the SIC - GNSO Constituency Process 7. From the BFC - Approval of Expenses Related to Board Approved Activities 8. From the SIC - TLG Review - actions based on Independent Reviewer's Final Report 9. Fast Track Review Possible Actions 10. Issues Arising from Silicon Valley Meeting 11. Any Other Business

1 0

WHOIS Review Team - Call for Public Comment
by Glen de Saint Géry 05 Mar '11

05 Mar '11

http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-04mar11-en.htm ________________________________ WHOIS Review Team – Call for Public Comment 4 March 2011 The WHOIS Policy Review Team<https://community.icann.org/display/whoisreview/WHOIS+Policy+Review+Team> was launched in October 2010 in line with the Affirmation of Commitments<http://www.icann.org/en/documents/affirmation-of-commitments-30sep09-en.htm> (AoC) provisions, section 9.3.1, which stipulates that: "ICANN additionally commits to enforcing its existing policy relating to WHOIS, subject to applicable laws. Such existing policy requires that ICANN implement measures to maintain timely, unrestricted and public access to accurate and complete WHOIS information, including registrant, technical, billing, and administrative contact information. One year from the effective date of this document and then no less frequently than every three years thereafter, ICANN will organize a review of WHOIS policy and its implementation to assess the extent to which WHOIS policy is effective and its implementation meets the legitimate needs of law enforcement and promotes consumer trust." http://www.icann.org/en/documents/affirmation-of-commitments-30sep09-en.htm The WHOIS policy Review Team (WHOIS RT) is composed of ten SO/AC representatives, two independent experts, one Law Enforcement representative, the ICANN President and CEO (Selector)'s designated nominee and the Chair of the GAC (Selector)'s designated nominee. For full reference, please consult: http://www.icann.org/en/reviews/affirmation/composition-4-en.htm The WHOIS Review Team held its first formal face-to-face meeting in London, January 2011, and agreed on a scope of work, road map, action plan and outreach plan. We submit these materials to the Community for review, input and comment. Further, on the substantive issues, the WHOIS Review Team's first tasks have been to define key terms from its 9.3.1 section of Affirmation of Commitments scope. The WHOIS Review Team would welcome public comment<http://www.icann.org/en/public-comment/public-comment-201104-en.htm#whois-rt> on the following issues: What is a "consumer"? There is no single universally agreed definition of 'consumer', and legal definitions in different jurisdictions vary widely. Some are narrow and limited to 'natural persons', while others are broader and include various types of organisations. The WHOIS review team has been considering a broad interpretation of the term 'consumer', as this would allow a broad range of perspectives to be considered by the review team. This appears to be consistent with the intention of the drafters of the AoC. In the global sense, "consumer" may mean: And specifically within the context of this review, a "consumer" w.r.t. WHOIS data and WHOIS Service may mean: Feedback request from community Community feedback is desired on the WHOIS Review Team's approach to this definition. Is it too broad or too restrictive? In either case, how should it be changed? 1. Scope of Work and Roadmap https://community.icann.org/display/whoisreview/Scope+and+Roadmap+of+the+WH… 2. Outreach Plan https://community.icann.org/display/whoisreview/Outreach+plan 3. Action Plan https://community.icann.org/display/whoisreview/Action+plan 4. List of Key Definitions 1. Law Enforcement: Law Enforcement shall be considered to be an entity authorized by a government and whose responsibilities include the maintenance, co-ordination, or enforcement of laws, multi-national treaty or government-imposed legal obligations. 2. Applicable Laws: Includes any and all local and national laws that regulate and/or control the collection, use, access, and disclosure of personally identifiable information. It may also include other relevant legal obligations, including U.N. Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the U.N. Guidelines for the Regulation of Computerized Personal Data Files. 3. Producers and Maintainers of WHOIS Data: 1. Producers: The individuals or organizations supplying contact data for inclusion into WHOIS data. 2. Maintainers: The WHOIS Review Team proposes to subdivide this category in to: § Data Controllers: Individuals or organizations that define the data to be collected, require its release, and govern its use. May or may not be directly involved in these functions. § Data Processors: Individuals or organizations engaged in the collection, storage, and release of data, according to the terms defined by the Data Controller. They do -not- determine the nature or use of the data that they collect or maintain. 4. Consumer: * All Internet users including natural persons, commercial and non-commercial entities, government and academic entities. * Any consumer that acts as a Producer of WHOIS data (see above), Maintainer of WHOIS data and provider of WHOIS Service (e.g. Registrars), or User of WHOIS data (e.g. individuals, commercial or non-commercial entities who legitimately query the WHOIS data). The WHOIS Review Team also welcomes general comments on the above issues, and any other issues which you would like us to consider at this early stage in our work. The ICANN San Francisco meeting takes place during our comment period and we will be reaching out to the Community. The WHOIS Review Team will hold a public session on Wednesday 16 February 2011 at 11 am – 12 noon in the Elizabethan A-C meeting room: http://svsf40.icann.org/node/22173. We hold a full day face-to-face meeting on Sunday, 13 March which is public and silent observers are welcome to join us: http://svsf40.icann.org/node/21983. Finally, we will be meeting with Supporting Organizations and Advisory Committees in San Francisco and Singapore ICANN meetings (and to arrange a meeting please contact Alice Jansen, alice.jansen(a)icann.org<mailto:alice.jansen@icann.org>). To find minutes of our meetings as well as documents and work in progress, please check our public community wiki at: https://community.icann.org/display/whoisreview/WHOIS+Policy+Review+Team Thank you for taking the time to consider these issues and documents. Your participation is essential to the success of the review, and your comments<http://www.icann.org/en/public-comment/public-comment-201104-en.htm#whois-rt> will be carefully considered. Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org<mailto:gnso.secretariat@gnso.icann.org> http://gnso.icann.org

1 0