[gnso-dow123] Regarding .name WHOIS provisions

["Bruce Tonkin" <Bruce.Tonkin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

The ICANN Board resolution that relates to the .name tiered access was
in December of 2002.

From: http://www.icann.org/minutes/minutes-02dec02.htm


Amendment to .name Registry Agreement

Dr. Cerf noted that the first item on the agenda concerns an amendment
to the .name Registry Agreement that has been proposed by the registry
operator, Global Name Registry (GNR). Prior to the meeting, a "General
Counsel's Analysis of GNR's Request for Amendment to Registry
Agreement", along with associated materials, was provided to the Board
and posted.

Dr. Cerf called for a motion on the topic. Mr. Kraaijenbrink then moved,
with Dr. Wilson's second, that the Board adopt the following resolution:

Whereas, on 9 November 2002 Global Name Registry Limited (GNR), which
operates the registry for the .name top-level domain under a registry
agreement it entered with ICANN on 1 August 2001, requested that its
registry agreement be amended to revise the manner in which, and the
conditions under which, GNR provides public Whois data for the .name
top-level domain;

Whereas, the GNR proposal follows consultations since February 2002 with
users of the public Whois and other interested persons, including
registrars, law enforcement, the intellectual property community and
privacy advocates;

Whereas, in August 2002 GNR's proposal (as it then existed) was posted
on the DNSO Whois Task Force public list, the DNSO Registrar
constituency's discussion list, and the DNSO General Assembly discussion
list;

Whereas, in October 2002, GNR formally briefed the DNSO Whois Task
Force, the DNSO Business constituency, and the DNSO Registrar
constituency on its proposal and sought comments;

Whereas, GNR revised its proposal based on these consultations;

Whereas, letters of support for, or non-objection to, GNR's revised
proposal have been received from the three gTLD Registry Constituency
representatives to the Names Council, Ken Stubbs (Registrar Constituency
Names Council representative), and Steve Metalitz (President of the
Intellectual Property Constituency);

Whereas, the ICANN General Counsel has presented the Board with an
analysis concluding that because the proposed changes to the .name Whois
service are unlikely to harm legitimate interests of third parties,
streamlined consideration of the amendment, without resort to the formal
consensus-development process, is appropriate and recommending that the
proposal for an amendment be approved;

Whereas, the General Counsel has presented the Board with a proposed
substitute Appendix O to the .name registry agreement intended to
implement GNR's proposal, and has indicated that conforming and
supporting revisions to other appendices will be necessary;

Whereas, the Board concludes that the requested modifications are
justified by the unique business and legal circumstances of the .name
top-level domain, and the approval of these modifications should not be
viewed as establishing a precedent that applies to other circumstances;

Whereas, in view of GNR's stated position that the modifications will
provide heightened confidence that its Whois service complies with
applicable data protection laws in the United Kingdom, GNR has
undertaken to provide timely and appropriate assurances regarding the
achievement of this objective; and

Whereas, GNR has stated its understanding that additional substantial
modification to the proposed extensive Whois access agreement (including
charging a fee for such access) will require ICANN approval, and that
future requests for approval should be preceded by documented
consultation by GNR with parties to existing extensive Whois access
agreements;

Resolved [02.142] that the President is authorized to enter an amendment
to ICANN's .name registry agreement with GNR revising the appendices to
that agreement to implement GNR's proposal to revise the manner in
which, and the conditions under which, .name public Whois data is made
available.

At this point in the discussion, Mr. Chapin and Dr. Pisanty joined the
meeting.

Mr. Mueller-Maguhn objected to the provisions of revised Appendix O,
which he views as providing too much access to personal information. He
views the .name Whois service as raising important privacy issues. In
particular, he noted that the revised agreement allowed Whois
information to be used for journalism purposes. He suggested that Board
action be deferred until a Whois system was established that provided a
higher degree of privacy protection.

Mr. Cohen noted that the proposed revision to the registry agreement
provides the same amount - neither more nor less - of Whois data; the
changes are intended to provide a greater practical assurance that the
Whois data is not used for inappropriate purposes, thereby enhancing
privacy protections. Dr. Lynn stated that the proposed revisions in the
.name registry agreement did not effect a fundamental shift in ICANN
policy. If there is to be such as fundamental shift such as advocated by
Mr. Mueller-Maguhn, Dr. Lynn stated his view that it should go through
the bottom-up policy-development process. Dr. Lynn noted that a DNSO
task force had recently issued a report on Whois policy. 

Dr. Cerf agreed that significant shifts in Whois policy should go
through the established policy-development process, but noted that the
minutes should reflect that Mr. Mueller-Maguhn's concerns are valid ones
that should be considered in the policy-development process. 

The Board passed the above motion by a 12-0-2 vote, with Dr. Blokzijl
and Mr. Mueller-Maguhn abstaining.


The current version of Appendix O of the .name agreement is available at
(dated 8 Aug 2003):
http://www.icann.org/tlds/agreements/name/registry-agmt-appo-8aug03.htm


Regards,
Bruce Tonkin