Draft Charter for new Whois Working Group
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
Thanks Maria. It appears to me that this captures the needed information. 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." ________________________________ From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Maria Farrell Sent: Friday, March 30, 2007 9:52 AM To: 'Council GNSO' Subject: [council] Draft Charter for new Whois Working Group 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
Hi, Maria, thank you for creating the draft charter. I mostly favor it, but do have one issue. In fact it is, essentially, the same issue that caused me to vote against the creation of the WG of the first place. While the Background section of the report goes over the recent history of the Council vis a vis whois, it leaves out any mention of the decision made by the council in April of 2006 regarding the purpose of whois. While there may be a desire, or even an intention, to unwind this decision, I do not think we can do so by omission. Rather, if the council needs to reconsider in light of intervening events as was indicated when the decision was first made, they we should should do so openly and transparently. Personally I would prefer to not have to reconsider the purpose of whois, but if we do, we should do so intentionally and it may make sense to do in terms of the requirements (whatever the final set may be) that the WG has to deal with. I also welcome the notion of working within a GNSO Council WG that includes, as full members, members of the GAC, representatives from government agencies (e.g. law enforcement) and the broader community. Am I correct in assuming that we would also welcome, and invite, members from other ICANN ACs as well as members from government agencies such as those involved in privacy protection, freedom of expression and data protection? In any case, I would like to be included in this Working Group and look forward to working within a multistakeholder group to achieve a greater consensus with the council and the community. thanks a. On 30 mar 2007, at 14.51, 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>
Hello Avri,
Am I correct in assuming that we would also welcome, and invite, members from other ICANN ACs as well as members from government agencies such as those involved in privacy protection, freedom of expression and data protection?
Yes. Regarding the definition of purpose - we again had a split vote 3 constituencies for and against, with some nominating committee appointees also voting in favour. We did get some strong feedback from the community over the purpose definition and the intent has been to review it once the other items of the terms of reference are complete. Ie what data is public and how to access any data that is not public. It is not forgotten - and as you say does need to be dealt with explicitly by the Council. Regards, Bruce Tonkin
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
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
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
I think we also have to be careful about undoing the extensive work that was done 'live' in Lisbon in crafting the motion. We spent the majority of our time in the Council meeting in Lisbon on this one issue and even worked through what was supposed to be a lunch break. If we restart the process of amending the motion over again I am fearful that we will again spend the majority of our meeting time trading amendments without moving the process forward. I doubt very seriously that there is any possibility of writing the motion so that it perfectly satisfies everyone but the important thing is make it clear enough that constructive work can proceed in a timely fashion. I agree that the SoW needs to be reasonably bounded but I would oppose making it so restrictive that creative thinking was limited that might result in totally new approaches not yet considered. It's not as if strong consensus was reached by the working group so there seems to be plenty of room for collaborative work if all sides are willing to commit to it. I would suggest that we limit the time we spend discussing and considering amendments; if quick consensus can be reached, fine; if not, then it might be best to accept the motion as drafted in Lisbon and work on forming the group, identifying a chair, finalizing the procedural guidelines, etc. 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."
-----Original Message----- From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Robin Gross Sent: Wednesday, April 11, 2007 2:50 PM 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
Per my earlier message, the proposed SOW is somewhat incongruent with the motion we passed at Council. I agree that completely revisiting the motion is probably not our best option, but we should at least seek to ensure that the SOW is consistent with the motion, which I don't believe is the case right now. On 11-Apr-07, at 4:32 PM, Gomes, Chuck wrote:
I think we also have to be careful about undoing the extensive work that was done 'live' in Lisbon in crafting the motion. We spent the majority of our time in the Council meeting in Lisbon on this one issue and even worked through what was supposed to be a lunch break. If we restart the process of amending the motion over again I am fearful that we will again spend the majority of our meeting time trading amendments without moving the process forward. I doubt very seriously that there is any possibility of writing the motion so that it perfectly satisfies everyone but the important thing is make it clear enough that constructive work can proceed in a timely fashion. I agree that the SoW needs to be reasonably bounded but I would oppose making it so restrictive that creative thinking was limited that might result in totally new approaches not yet considered. It's not as if strong consensus was reached by the working group so there seems to be plenty of room for collaborative work if all sides are willing to commit to it.
I would suggest that we limit the time we spend discussing and considering amendments; if quick consensus can be reached, fine; if not, then it might be best to accept the motion as drafted in Lisbon and work on forming the group, identifying a chair, finalizing the procedural guidelines, etc.
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."
-----Original Message----- From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Robin Gross Sent: Wednesday, April 11, 2007 2:50 PM 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
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
I agree with Chuck Tony Harris ----- Original Message ----- From: "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@verisign.com> To: <robin@ipjustice.org>; "Maria Farrell" <maria.farrell@icann.org>; "Council GNSO" <council@gnso.icann.org> Sent: Wednesday, April 11, 2007 5:32 PM Subject: RE: [council] Draft Charter for new Whois Working Group
I think we also have to be careful about undoing the extensive work that was done 'live' in Lisbon in crafting the motion. We spent the majority of our time in the Council meeting in Lisbon on this one issue and even worked through what was supposed to be a lunch break. If we restart the process of amending the motion over again I am fearful that we will again spend the majority of our meeting time trading amendments without moving the process forward. I doubt very seriously that there is any possibility of writing the motion so that it perfectly satisfies everyone but the important thing is make it clear enough that constructive work can proceed in a timely fashion. I agree that the SoW needs to be reasonably bounded but I would oppose making it so restrictive that creative thinking was limited that might result in totally new approaches not yet considered. It's not as if strong consensus was reached by the working group so there seems to be plenty of room for collaborative work if all sides are willing to commit to it.
I would suggest that we limit the time we spend discussing and considering amendments; if quick consensus can be reached, fine; if not, then it might be best to accept the motion as drafted in Lisbon and work on forming the group, identifying a chair, finalizing the procedural guidelines, etc.
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."
-----Original Message----- From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Robin Gross Sent: Wednesday, April 11, 2007 2:50 PM 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
Chuck, and all: I am really sorry to read this. First, what is worse: undoing 3 year work of Task Force (not Working Group, and we all know now what is the difference in our PDP process, right?) or a quick arrangement among a few over lunch? Why is it that the weaker voice (by institutional design) is so much difficult to be heard and acknowledged, even when its proponents are numerous enough to make a majority, and even a super-majority? Why is it that always the same set of actors have to prevail, and the same others have to shrink back? What is this council all about? Is it a body that is serious about helping ICANN to live up to its self-claimed bottom-up processes whatever it takes, including the elementary fairness and honesty of accepting the outcome of legitimate processes as already established and agreed upon, or is the council a trade union of the industry and business-IPR interests, exclusively concerned with protecting such vested interests? When you say: I would oppose making it so
restrictive that creative thinking was limited that might result in totally new approaches not yet considered.
Well, we've been doing creative thinking for years. Remember? the definition of the Whois purpose had been rephrased until the day of the vote: how more creative can one be? The last occurrence of this was the "special circumstances" creation. Are you really kin moving the process forward? Then it is time to stop that kind of creative thinking that rather looks like filibustering, respect once for all the outcome of the Whois TF and the Council vote, and build upon these. Sincerely, and honestly, Mawaki Chango --- "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@verisign.com> wrote:
I think we also have to be careful about undoing the extensive work that was done 'live' in Lisbon in crafting the motion. We spent the majority of our time in the Council meeting in Lisbon on this one issue and even worked through what was supposed to be a lunch break. If we restart the process of amending the motion over again I am fearful that we will again spend the majority of our meeting time trading amendments without moving the process forward. I doubt very seriously that there is any possibility of writing the motion so that it perfectly satisfies everyone but the important thing is make it clear enough that constructive work can proceed in a timely fashion. I agree that the SoW needs to be reasonably bounded but I would oppose making it so restrictive that creative thinking was limited that might result in totally new approaches not yet considered. It's not as if strong consensus was reached by the working group so there seems to be plenty of room for collaborative work if all sides are willing to commit to it.
I would suggest that we limit the time we spend discussing and considering amendments; if quick consensus can be reached, fine; if not, then it might be best to accept the motion as drafted in Lisbon and work on forming the group, identifying a chair, finalizing the procedural guidelines, etc.
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."
-----Original Message----- From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Robin Gross Sent: Wednesday, April 11, 2007 2:50 PM 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
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
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
parties may policy question those activities.
Thank you, Robin
Ross Rader wrote:
Maria -
Many thanks for turning this around so quickly. The draft
generally great. I'd like to suggest that the section entitled "work plan" uses the relevant text of the resolution instead of
is 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
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
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
language requests the creation of a comprehensive
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
the roles parties may the proposed proposal that possible to
make.
In each of these cases, it might just make the most sense
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
foundation, it might make sense to specifically include
to rely on the same the policy
recommendations of the task force in the document itself,
summary, or an annex that we can easily refer to. The
recommendations that I am referring to are included in
either as a policy 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
Hello All, To avoid confusion, here is the WHOIS Task Force recommendation from the task force report: http://gnso.icann.org/issues/whois-privacy/whois-services-final-tf-repor t-12mar07.htm The task force proposes the following as its policy recommendation to the GNSO Council: *** Proposal for Implementing an Operational Point of Contact *** There are four main areas of consideration dealt with by this proposal; 1. The type of contact data published by Registrars via Whois 2. The type of contact data published by Registries via Whois 3. The mechanism by which inaccurate data is dealt with and corrected 4. The mechanism by which prospective gaining registrars obtain the underlying contact information from prospective losing registrars at the time of domain name transfers. This proposal pre-supposes that 1) domain name contact data not be available through any sources other than those discussed by this proposal, unless by Registrars, and in that case at the Registrar's option, and that 2) regardless of the information displayed, that the domain name contact data collected by registrars remain as specified in the RAA ("Underlying Whois Contact Data"). Scope This proposal encompasses the Whois services (commonly referred to as "port 43 whois" and "web whois" or "port 80 whois") operated by all ICANN accredited registrars and all gTLD registries (including .aero, .biz, .com, .coop, .info, .jobs, .museum, .name, .net, .org, .pro and .travel as of January 18., 2006). ** Purpose of the Points of Contact ** * 1. Purpose of the Registered Name Holder * The registered name holder is the individual or organization that registers a specific domain name. This individual or organization holds the right to use that specific domain name for a specified period of time, provided certain conditions are met and the registration fees are paid. This person or organization is bound by the terms of the relevant service agreement with the Registry operator for the TLD in question. * 2. Purpose of the Administrative and Technical Contacts * Under this proposal, the administrative and technical contacts would no longer be displayed within the Whois system. As a result, they would no longer have a purpose within the context of Whois. * 3. Purpose of the Operational Point of Contact * This proposal introduces the Operational Point of Contact, which would be collected by registrars and displayed in response to Whois queries regarding specific domain names. The purpose of the operational point of contact is to resolve, or to reliably pass on data to resolve, operational issues relating to a domain name. At a minimum, this must include the resolution of issues relating to the configuration of the records associated with the domain name within a DNS nameserver. The operational point of contact may also be capable of resolving additional types of issues based on an agreement with the registered name holder to do so. * 4. Notifying Registrants of the Purpose of the Points of Contact * ICANN will develop a user guide describing the various contacts and the changes in information provided as part of the Whois service. This guide should provide information for both registrants as well as users of the Whois service. At the time the registrar sends its annual Whois Data Reminder Policy notice to each registrant, it must include a link to the ICANN-developed guide on the purpose of each contact. ** The Type of Contact Data Published by Registrars; ** Accredited Registrars will publish three types of data pertaining to the domain name registration in their respective gTLD Whois repositories; 1. The name of the Registered Name Holder 2. The country and state/province of the Registered Name Holder 3. The contact information for the primary operational point of contact (oPOC), which must include, but is not limited to; 1. The contact name of the oPOC 2. The contact address of the oPOC 3. The contact telephone number of the oPOC 4. The contact email address of the oPOC 4. The date of the initial registration of the domain name (creation date) 5. The date of the expiration of the current term of the domain name (expiry date) 6. The following registry level data: 1. The Registered name 2. The identity of the Sponsoring Registrar 3. The URI of the authoritative Whois server 4. All authoritative nameserver names associated with the domain name registration record 5. The status of the Registered Name (LOCK, HOLD, EXPIRED, or any other Registry specified value) Registrars must allow a Registrant to provide a minimum of two operational points of contact. As a condition of registration, Registrants must provide a minimum of one operational point of contact. If a Registrant provides a second operational point of contact, the Registrar must pubish this data via whois. If the Registrant has not specified a second operational point of contact, the Registrar is not obligation [ad: obligated] to publish a null or empty record via the Whois service. Registrars may choose to allow Registrants to specify additional operational points of contact beyond the second operational point of contact. If the Registrant exercises this option, the Registrar must publish these additional records in the record of delegation for the domain name in question in a manner consistent with the publication of multiple nameservers in other areas of this same record. This proposal does not require the publication of any additional data; however Registrars may choose to provide additional data at their discretion. The Type of Contact Data Published by Registries; gTLD Registries will publish a limited data set concerning each Registered Name. Registries must not publish or provide any additional data. This Registry Level data is solely limited to; 1. The Registered name 2. The identity of the Sponsoring Registrar which shall consist of separate fields indicating; 3. the Registrar Name and; 4. the corresponding IANA Registrar Identification Number 5. The URI of the authoritative Whois server 6. All authoritative nameserver hostnames and corresponding IP addresses associated with the domain name registration record 7. The status of the Registered Name (LOCK, HOLD, EXPIRED, or any other Registry value specified in the EPP RFC) 8. The date of the initial registration of the domain name (creation date) 9. The date of the expiration of the current term of the domain name (expiry date) *** Correcting Inaccurate Whois Data; In addition to preserving the existing requirement for Accredited Registrars to promptly update registration records when a Registered Name Holder provides them with updated information , Registrars must also positively respond to notices of alleged inaccuracies in a timely manner. Specifically, when a Registrar receives notice of an alleged inaccuracy in the whois record for a particular domain name; 1. the Registrar must notify the Operational Point of Contact or the Registered Name Holder in a timely manner. 2. The oPOC or the Registered Name Holder must correct the alleged inaccuracy or defend the accuracy of the data, also in a timely manner. 3. If the oPOC or the Registered Name Holder does not update the contact record with corrected information within this time period, the Registrar must either place the domain name on "hold" or revoke the registration. 4. Before accepting the new information, the Registrar must verify that the oPOC or the Registered Name Holder is contactable using the new email address provided. 5. If the basis for the original complaint of inaccurate data included data elements other than the e-mail address, the Registrar must take reasonable steps to validate corrections to these other data elements before accepting them. A standardized mechanism should be used to convey notices of alleged inaccuracy from the internet community and distribute them to the relevant registrar. Facilitating Inter-registrar Domain Name Transfers In order to ensure continued domain name portability, Registrars must continue to be able to transfer detailed contact records between one another at the request of the Registered Name Holder or oPOC. Therefore, this proposal recommends that the Sponsoring Registrar must make the data outlined in section 3.3.1 of the RAA be made available to the prospective gaining registrar upon request for the purpose of confirming the Registrant/oPOC identity and validating the authenticity of the domain name transfer request. This proposal further recommends that this mechanism be augmented, when appropriate, by the use of EPP AUTH-INFO tokens/codes. Finally, this proposal recommends that the existing Inter-registrar Transfer policy be amended to recognize the authority of the Operational Point of Contact and sunset that of the Administrative, Technical and Billing Contacts. Regards, Bruce Tonkin
Maria, please add me to the working group. Thanks, tom Am 30.03.2007 schrieb Maria Farrell:
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
Gruss, tom (__) (OO)_____ (oo) /|\ A cow is not entirely full of | |--/ | * milk some of it is hamburger! w w w w
Hello Maria, Please add me to the working group. Thank you, Robin Thomas Keller wrote:
Maria,
please add me to the working group.
Thanks,
tom
Am 30.03.2007 schrieb Maria Farrell:
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
Gruss,
tom
(__) (OO)_____ (oo) /|\ A cow is not entirely full of | |--/ | * milk some of it is hamburger! w w w w
participants (9)
-
Anthony Harris -
Avri Doria -
Bruce Tonkin -
Gomes, Chuck -
Maria Farrell -
Mawaki Chango -
Robin Gross -
Ross Rader -
Thomas Keller