There are significant errors below regarding "Motion Two: Ratify WHOIS working group statement of work " that need to be corrected. I've gone back and re-listened to the meeting and what was sent to us today is not what we agreed to during the call for section 4B and the Background Section. This is the exact wording that was agreed to by the council for 4B: "determine how and which legitimate third parties may access registration data that is no longer available for unrestricted public access." Also, it was agreed that in the background section there would be a reference to the 3 decisions including the GNSO's (Wellington) April 2006 decision "with 2-3 sentences to summarize what those decisions were". I do not see that below. Please change the report below so it reflects what the council agreed to. Thank you, Robin GNSO.SECRETARIAT@GNSO.ICANN.ORG wrote:
[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-12... . • Staff notes on Potential Implementation Issues; http://gnso.icann.org/issues/whois/staff-discussion-points-whois-final-15mar...
• 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