[gnso-dow123] Whois task force 123 Draft Minutes, 19 April, 2005
To: gnso-dow123tf[at]gnso.icann.org] Please find the draft minutes of the Whois task force 123 teleconference held on 19 April 2005. Please let me know if you would like any changes made. Thank you, Kind regards Glen Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat - ICANN gnso.secretariat[at]gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org <!--#set var="bartitle" value="WHOIS Task Forces 1 2 3 teleconference minutes"--> <!--#set var="pagetitle" value="WHOIS Task Force 1 2 3 teleconference minutes"--> <!--#set var="pagedate" value="29 March 2005" value=""--> <!--#set var="bgcell" value="#ffffff"--> <!--#include virtual="/header.shtml"--> <!--#exec cmd="/usr/bin/perl /etc/gnso/menu.pl 'WHOIS Task Force 1 2 3 teleconference minutes'"--> <h4 align="center"><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><b>WHOIS Task Forces 1 2 3<br> <br> 19 April 2005 - Minutes</b></font></h4> <p><b><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">ATTENDEES:<br> GNSO Constituency representatives:<br> </font></b><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"> Jordyn Buchanan - Co-Chair<br> <font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Registrars constituency - Paul Stahura</font><br> <font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Registrars constituency -</font> Tim Ruiz <br> Registrars constituency - Ross Rader <br> Commercial and Business Users constituency - Marilyn Cade <br> Commercial and Business Users constituency - David Fares<b><br> </b><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Internet Service and Connectivity Providers constituency - Antonio </font>Harris </font> <font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"> <br> Intellectual Property Interests Constituency - Steve Metalitz<br> Non Commercial Users Constituency - Milton Mueller <br> <br> Liaisons<br> At-Large Advisory Committee (ALAC) liaisons - Bret Fausett <br> At-Large Advisory Committee (ALAC) liaisons - Wendy Seltzer</font> <font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"> <br> </font></p> <p><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>Ex-officio</strong><br> <br> Suzanne Sene GAC Liaison to GNSO Council </font></p> <p><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><b>ICANN Staff</b>: <br> Olof Nordling - Manager of Policy Development Coordination<br> Maria Farrell Farrell - GNSO Policy Officer<br> <br> </font><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><b>GNSO Secretariat </b>- Glen de Saint Géry <br> <br> <b>Absent:</b></font><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><br> gTLD Registries constituency: - Jeff Neuman</font><b><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"> </font></b><b><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"> - </font></b><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Co-Chair </font><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"> - apologies <br> Registrars constituency - Tom Keller - apologies <br> </font><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Internet Service and Connectivity Providers constituency - Greg Ruth</font></font><b><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><br> </font></b><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">gTLD Registries constituency - David Maher </font><b><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"></font></b><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"> <br> gTLD Registries constituency - Ken Stubbs - apologies <br> </font><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Intellectual Property Interests Constituency - Niklas Lagergren - apologies <br> Non Commercial Users Constituency - Kathy Kleiman <br> </font><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Non Commercial Users Constituency - Marc Schneiders </font> - <font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">apologies </font><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><br> </font> <font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Internet Service and Connectivity Providers constituency - Maggie Mansourkia</font><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"> <br> </font><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"></font> <font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"> </font><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"> </font><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"></font> <br> <font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><a href="http://gnso-audio.icann.org/WHOIS-20050419-tf123.mp3";>MP 3 recording </a></font><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><br> <a href="http://forum.icann.org/lists/gnso-dow123/msg00164.html";>Decisions and Actions</a></font></p> <p><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Jordyn Buchanan proposed the following agenda:<br> 1. Recap from Mar del Plata <br> 2. Discussion on<a href="http://forum.icann.org/lists/gnso-dow123/msg00146.html";> Preliminary report </a> provided by staff - voting procedure<br> 3. Work plan waiting for GNSO Council proposed re charter of task force </font></p> <p><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>1. Recap from Mar del Plata </strong><br> There were 2 Whois related meetings in Mar del Plata.<br> - between the GNSO Council and the Whois task force<br> - the <a href="http://www.icann.org/meetings/mardelplata/captioning-gnso-forum-06apr05.htm";>GNSO public forum</a> with presentations by<br> </font><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><a href="http://icann.org/presentations/gnso-whois-tf-update-MdP-06apr05.pdf";>Jordyn Buchanan </a><br> Denic and Network and Solutions on privacy </font></p> <p><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">In the meeting between the GNSO Council and the Whois task force it was agreed that the council would provide a new charter for the task force to narrow the scope of the work and indicate a clearer path forward with new terms of reference within the policy development process (PDP).<br> Until the new charter is established by the Council, it was agreed to work in 4 areas.<br> 1. On the first recommendation on providing notice, the <a href="http://gnso.icann.org/issues/whois/whois-tf123-final-rpt-22apr05.shtml";>final report</a> up for the task force vote.<br> 2. The <a href="http://gnso.icann.org/issues/whois-privacy/whois-tf-conflict-30nov04.pdf";>second recommendation </a>on disputes with local or national privacy laws. It would be decided whether it would be a formal consensus recommendation or advice to the board. <br> 3. Tiered access or access to data area.<br> 4. Task force three on accuracy focusing on accuracy in response to complaints. </font></p> <p><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>Suzanne Sene</strong> reported that the Government Advisory Committee (GAC) working group and the GNSO Council had met for nearly 3 hours, much longer than the scheduled one hour.<br> It was agreed to work together in a closed working session at the Luxembourg meeting, starting with the topic of law enforcement to facilitate a better understanding of law enforcement uses of whois data.</font></p> <p><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><br> <strong>3. Work plan waiting for GNSO Council proposed re charter of task force</strong><br> <strong>Jordyn Buchanan </strong>commented that it was less evident how to go forward with the accuracy topic. He referred to the <a href="http://forum.icann.org/lists/gnso-dow123/msg00041.html";>summary notes</a> regarding accuracy issues and outcome of discussion in Cape Town that Bruce Tonkin had sent to the task force. <br> <strong>Ross Rader</strong> commented that the Cape Town discussion had been the most productive and a better starting point for more work. He went on to comment that it would probably be more appropriate for the task force to finish its work and the council appoint a new task force. <br> <strong>Jordyn Buchanan </strong>commented that lacking a new charter, his understanding of the agreement in Mar del Plata was that there would continue to be accuracy work within the scope of this task force with the focus on responses to complaints. <br> <strong>Milton Muelle</strong>r, who was not at the Mar del Plata meetings, felt that tiered access which is the big rock that affected everything else and that unless this task force was capable of doing something on tiered access it did not make sense to have something separate on accuracy . Accuracy had been dealt with for years and the accuracy issue could not be resolved without resolving the privacy issue.<br> <strong>Tony Harris</strong> agreed keeping accuracy and tiered access on the table and commented that the cost affected the registrars directly and until a way could be found around that issue that would not impact cost, the discussions would not progress.<br> <strong>Marilyn Cade</strong> suggested that further discussion depended on Bruce Tonkin’s proposed charter back but that the minutes reflected everybody’s comments.<br> </font><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Jordyn Buchanan, in view of the proposed GNSO Council meeting on 12 May 2005, suggested scheduling some substantive dialogue on the topics to see what ground could be covered as a useful foundation once the PDP and stricter guidelines were established.<br> In the three meetings between 19 April and the 12 May he suggested substantive dialogue on each of the 3 topics:<br> - </font><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"> tiered access, <br> - international laws <br> - </font><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">accuracy. <br> Task force members indicted their preference:</font></p> <p><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>Ross Rader</strong>, Registrar Constituency, opted for accuracy following the constructive conversation in Cape Town. </font></p> <p><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>Wendy Seltzer</strong>, ALAC without an official vote, opted for the tiered access and content of international laws. She specified further that national laws might up front indicate what was possible in terms of the other questions.</font></p> <p><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>Milton Mueller's</strong> (NCUC) input was in favour of national laws as it was the furthermost progressed and should be moved along.</font></p> <p><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>Marilyn Cade,</strong> CBUC, wanted clarification that the next step was the recommendation on national law. She also asked for Senior ICANN Staff members to participate on the call. <br> <br> <strong>It was agreed that Steve Metalitz would circulate a revised draft of <a href="http://www.gnso.icann.org/issues/whois-privacy/whois-tf-conflict-30nov04.pdf";>recommendation 2</a> , a Procedure for conflicts, when there are conflicts between a registrar's or registry's legal obligations under local privacy laws an their contractual obligations to ICANN<br> </strong></font><strong><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">to be discussed with the task force and Senior Staff at the next meeting, 26 April 2005 </font></strong><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><br> <br> <strong>2. Discussion on<a href="http://forum.icann.org/lists/gnso-dow123/msg00146.html";> Preliminary report </a> provided by staff - voting procedure<br> Maria Farrell</strong> commented that no substantial changes had been made to the report. <br> <strong><br> </strong></font><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>Jordyn Buchanan</strong> gave his interpretation of the <a href="http://gnso.icann.org/meetings/minutes-gnso-20nov03.shtml";>GNSO Council resolution from 21 November, 2003</a> that there was one vote per constituency. <br> <strong>Maria Farrel</strong>l received <a href="http://forum.icann.org/lists/gnso-dow123/msg00157.html";>feedback from ICANN Deputy General Counsel</a> that had a somewhat different interpretation: <br> Consulting "<strong>Dan Halloran</strong> on the bylaws and it would seem that constituency reps on the previous task forces probably retain their voting rights. But I believe there is some flexibility here, largely because the Task Force vote is illustrative and not binding.<br> If the number of voting reps on the call causes a numerical inequality between constituencies (e.g. if there are three registrar votes and the BC votes, as it plans to do, only once), we can ascribe the same number of votes to each constituency, with a constituency voting en bloc having the same nominal amount of votes. <br> This may be an approach to take if votes within a constituency are likely to differ. <br> Two things to bear in mind: <br> 1 The Task Force vote is an important indicator and is an essential part of the Final Task Force Report. But it is not a decisive vote. <br> 2 If the ambiguity persists, we can use the list to vote. The deadline is Friday."</font></p> <p><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>Ross Rader </strong>referred to his <a href="http://forum.icann.org/lists/gnso-dow123/msg00152.html";>original inquiry</a>, in the context of the registrar bylaws, which was that the registrar constituency elected each of its representatives and it was unclear in the present task force whether it was a new task force or the old three task forces combined. Thus he wanted to know if he had a legitimate right to cast a vote. </font></p> <p><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>Marilyn Cade proposed:</strong><br> 1. figuring out a way to handle the vote at the meeting<br> 2. devising a question that would be sent to council for clarity on the ongoing work.<br> She went on to comment that the response from the deputy general counsel was unsatisfactory. Further comments were that each constituency had a different assumption. Though each constituency had three members, not all the members could always be on the call thus each constituency could not always have three people voting. It was unclear to the constituencies how the voting would be handled. Task forces, as chartered by the Council are asked to vote to present a recommendation, they do not vote on consensus policy, but there is process for documenting minority opinions so there is clarity for the council on what comes forward. The situation would appear to confused because of the newness of the current combined task force situation.</font></p> <p><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>Milton Mueller</strong> agreed with<strong> Marilyn Cade</strong> that there were ambiguities in terms of voting but saw no reason to hold up the process being too bureaucratic. He was not confused by the deputy general counsel's clarification. The GNSO council was where the real vote was held anyway. Deputy Counsel indicated that it was a merged task force and that he could see all three members voting. The practice had been for each constituency to have one representative on each call however in the case of the NCUC everybody knew the vote was happening and that Milton Mueller would be covering it for the constituency. He offered to back up his statement with formal proxies if necessary but urged the group to move forward. </font></p> <p><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>Marilyn Cade</strong> clarified that she was not proposing postponing the vote. </font></p> <p><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>Steve Metalitz </strong>agreed with <strong>Marilyn Cade</strong> and <strong>Milton Mueller</strong> and asked the co-chair to cast his vote in favour of approving the preliminary report as he had to drop off the call. </font></p> <p><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>Jordyn Buchanan proposed:</strong><br> - That that any representative from a previous task force could on the call <br> - The votes would be recorded as constituency votes<br> - If there were splits within the constituencies it would be reported<br> In summary, the votes would be enumerated and then it would be reported that constituencies approved, abstained or voted against. </font></p> <p><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">The Secretariat noted the following votes:</font></p> <p><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">David Fares CBUC – in favour</font></p> <p><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Marilyn Cade CBUC – in favour</font></p> <p><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Tony Harris ISPC – in favour</font></p> <p><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Milton Mueller NCUC – in favour</font></p> <p><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Paul </font><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"> Stahura Registrar C - against the recommendation<br> Paul Stahura held Thomas Keller’s ( Registrar C.) proxy and voted against the recommendation. </font></p> <p><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Ross Rader Registrar C– against the recommendation</font></p> <p><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Steve Metalitz IPC – in favour<br> <br> Jordyn Buchanan – does not vote.<br> Tim Ruiz Registrar C– not voting. <br> </font></p> <p><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>The Secretariat</strong> mentioned that no one from the the gTLD Registry Constituency was on the call .</font></p> <p><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>Jordyn Buchanan</strong> stated that it opened the question of whether to allow email votes. </font></p> <p><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>Marilyn Cade</strong> proposed that the secretariat contact the members of the combined task force who were not present on the call and ask them to vote by email and have the votes recorded. </font></p> <p><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>Jordyn Buchanan </strong>agreed that an email ballot be sent to those absent task force members.<br> <strong>Milton Mueller </strong>asked that no one change their vote.<br> <strong>Steve Metalitz</strong> asked for clarity on the text of the vote.</font></p> <p><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>Jordyn Buchanan</strong> agreed to both requests. <br> <strong>The text of the vote: <br> </strong><br> Please vote on whether you support the recommendations contained in Section 1.1 of the preliminary report posted by Maria Farrell today. (Note: this is NOT a vote on whether you support posting the report or not, this IS a vote on whether or not you endorse the recommendations.) <br> <br> [ ] I support the recommendations <br> [ ] I do not support the recommendations <br> [ ] I abstain and that – I think that’s most fair as we have expanded the … who will be voting. Absent objections from anyone present, we ask everyone to send their vote.</font><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"></font></p> <p><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>Jordyn Buchanan</strong> concluded by commenting that there appeared to be 4 constituencies in favour and one against.<br> <br> </font><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>Next Call<br> </strong></font><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>Tuesday 26 April 2005 14:00 EST, 18:00 UTC </strong></font></p> <p><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">1. It was agreed that Steve Metalitz would circulate a revised draft of <a href="http://www.gnso.icann.org/issues/whois-privacy/whois-tf-conflict-30nov04.pdf";>recommendation 2</a> , a Procedure for conflicts, when there are conflicts between a registrar's or registry's legal obligations under local privacy laws an their contractual obligations to ICANN<br> to be discussed with the task force and Senior Staff at the next meeting, 26 April 2005 </font><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><br> 2. Seek clarification from the GNSO Council on who is eligible to vote.<br> 3. Send email votes to absent task force members </font></p> <p><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>Jordyn Buchanan </strong>thanked everyone for their participation. <br> The call ended at 19:20 UTC </font></p> <p> </p> <p align="center"> </p> <p> </p> |