RE: [gnso-dow123] WHOIS tf 123 draft minutes 17 May 2005

["Marilyn Cade" <marilynscade@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Dear fellow TF colleagues

 

The minutes have a few sort of typos [really just use of words differently,
like ?frequently, rather than frequency]  that I haven?t had a chance to
send in comments about. None of my comments affect substance, but are useful
to clarity. I can send them in later, or give them on the call. 

 

I expect to be on the call if I can dial in from the business event I?m at
in Stockholm. Hope to ?see? all of you shortly. 

 

Marilyn

 

  _____  

From: owner-gnso-dow123@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-dow123@xxxxxxxxx] On
Behalf Of GNSO.SECRETARIAT@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Friday, May 20, 2005 12:21 PM
To: gnso-dow123@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [gnso-dow123] WHOIS tf 123 draft minutes 17 May 2005

 


WHOIS Task Forces 1 2 3

17 May 2005 - Minutes


ATTENDEES:
GNSO Constituency representatives:
Jordyn Buchanan - Co-Chair
Registrars constituency - Paul Stahura 
Registrars constituency - Ross Rader 
Registrars constituency - Tom Keller
Internet Service and Connectivity Providers constituency - Tony Harris 
gTLD Registries constituency - Ken Stubbs 
Commercial and Business Users constituency - Marilyn Cade
Intellectual Property Interests Constituency - Steve Metalitz
Intellectual Property Interests Constituency - Niklas Lagergren 

Liaisons
At-Large Advisory Committee (ALAC) liaisons - Bret Fausett 
At-Large Advisory Committee (ALAC) liaisons - Wendy Seltzer 
GAC Liaison - Suzanne Sene absent - apologies 

ICANN Staff: 
Maria Farrell Farrell - ICANN GNSO Policy Officer

GNSO Secretariat - Glen de Saint Géry 

Absent:
Internet Service and Connectivity Providers constituency - Greg Ruth 
gTLD Registries constituency - David Maher - apologies 
Registrars constituency - Tim Ruiz 
Non Commercial Users Constituency - Marc Schneiders
Non Commercial Users Constituency - Kathy Kleiman 
Non Commercial Users Constituency - Milton Mueller 
Non Commercial Users Constituency - Frannie Wellings 
Commercial and Business Users Constituency - David Fares
Commercial and Business Users Constituency - Sarah Deutsch - apologies 
Internet Service and Connectivity Providers constituency - Maggie Mansourkia



MP3 Recording  <http://gnso-audio.icann.org/WHOIS-20050517-tf123.mp3> 
Preliminary <http://forum.icann.org/lists/gnso-dow123/msg00312.html>
Summary & list of implementation issues and questions regarding the
recommendation on notification 

Agenda
1. Document management
2. Brief recap on third draft of
<http://forum.icann.org/lists/gnso-dow123/msg00293.html>  Whois Terms of
Reference
3. Discussion on Task force Final report
<http://forum.icann.org/lists/gnso-dow123/pdfIfPH9oe38C.pdf>  

1. Document management 
Marilyn Cade suggested asking the ICANN staff for ideas on how to better
converge documents and working with Kent Crispin to develop a template for
submitting documents that would be easily and quickly ready for publishing
on the website. Perhaps the major documents that staff work on could adhere
to html format and not word.
Jordyn Buchanan proposed taking Marilyn Cade's comments as under advisement
and work in html and see how it affected the work of the task force.

1) Summary        Document file types
Decisions
Staff to consult internally on preparing major documents for circulation in
html.  
Actions
Glen and Maria will consult internally and refer back to the task force at a
later date. 

 2. Third draft of <http://forum.icann.org/lists/gnso-dow123/msg00293.html>
terms of reference 

Jordyn Buchanan reported that the GNSO Council at its meeting on 12 May,
2005, did not vote on the new terms of reference. Councilors felt more time
was needed given the various issues raised. It was agreed that submissions
suggesting additional modifications to the terms of reference should be
made. Council also solicited input from the task force on how ongoing task
force work should be accommodated in the terms of reference specifically
with regard to the work on the notification provisions and the conflict with
local or national privacy laws topic which was not contemplated in the
current terms of reference. There was informal agreement that those should
continue and Jordyn Buchanan and Maria Farrell suggest language for them to
be incorporated into the terms of reference. 
With regard to the timelines, the goals are to resolve the two outstanding
recommendations in the next few weeks and then focus most of the task force
time on the the terms of reference Bruce Tonkin has been developing along
with the GNSO council. 

2 Summary           Task force terms of reference

The GNSO Council has not yet finalized the Whois task force?s terms of
reference and has solicited input from the task force on how ongoing task
force work items should be accommodated.  

 

Actions

*       Jordyn and Maria will develop language to incorporate into the terms
of reference the two recommendations currently in development by the task
force. 
*       List participants to review the follow-up topics and prioritise them
for future discussion.  

 3. Discussion on task force
<http://forum.icann.org/lists/gnso-dow123/pdfFZ1nR9ZdoC.pdf>  final report 
Jordyn Buchanan clarified that the report
<http://forum.icann.org/lists/gnso-dow123/pdfFZ1nR9ZdoC.pdf> before the task
force should be the final document that would be sent to the GNSO council.
The policy
<http://www.icann.org/general/archive-bylaws/bylaws-08apr05.htm#AnnexA>
development process did not specify an additional vote before the report was
sent to the council. The bylaws
<http://www.icann.org/general/archive-bylaws/bylaws-08apr05.htm#AnnexA>
stated that the final report should encompasses the public comments. The
task force could review the recommendations in light of the comments. 
Jordyn suggested that if any substantive changes were made in light of the
public comments and the task force discussion, that another vote be
solicited, but if there were no substantive changes, then the previous vote
be forwarded to the council.

Marilyn Cade suggested the following additions and modifications to the
report to clarify the process:
- a cover document explaining that the preliminary report and has had the
public comments pasted in
- 1.2 "Summary of public comments voting on the recommendation" should be
changed the people who provided comments were not voting on the
recommendation. so we need to fix that title. 
Marilyn expressed concern about the mechanism by which the present
discussion would be summarised and transmitted to the council so they would
understand the recommendation. If the task force preferred a transmittal
document, that would be in order. 
- the last paragraph in the background gave a very different timeframe
assumption from the reality. .

Jordyn Buchanan agreed 
- to add some additional history which would include the vote, public
comments and their inclusion
- re title 1.2 
- need to differentiate between 1.2 and 1.3 that there were different public
comment periods on different topics. - to work with Maria to incorporate the
suggestions in a future draft.

Jordyn Buchanan suggested in response to Marilyn Cade's comment about the
spam filter, to make the recommendation that the list software give a
message to the poster that ?your message was posted? or diverted to the spam
list that would help the poster to take corrective action.

Jordyn Buchanan noted that 2 public comments were from participants in the
process, 3 were unsupportive of the recommendation.
Marilyn <http://forum.icann.org/lists/gnso-whois-tf-rpt/msg00003.html>  Cade
made a comment in support, also clarifying some of the purpose. 
Alan <http://forum.icann.org/lists/gnso-whois-tf-rpt/msg00000.html>  Levin
commented that he was not in favour because the recommendations did not
clearly that consent or checking the box only had to be done once during the
relationship with the registrar. 
This topic had actually come up in a previous discussion when Paul Stahura
made the point that if someone registered names often they should not have
to go through the procedures more than once. Reviewing the recommendations,
there seems to be some ambiguity on this point.

Marilyn Cade commented that from her experience users had to be reminded on
a frequently.
Her understanding of the recommendation was that this reminder would be
presented to the registrant so they can acknowledge it before they proceeded
with the registration. 

Jordyn Buchanan suggested getting consensus within the task force on the
issue.

Paul Stahura commented that some registrars registered many names every day,
and it did not seem practical for them to click on a notice 10 times a day.

Jordyn Buchanan summarised the options on the table. 
1. each domain name required explicit acknowledgement of the conditions.
2. each batch of domain names registered at one time. 
3. each relationship. Fourth is maybe 
4. variations, like number 2 unless at the time they create the relationship
they agree they don?t want to be notified any more, or every third batch, or
other variations.

Jordyn Buchanan commented that different registrars had different practices
with different customers. At register.com, people are required to agree, and
are provided with a service agreement, each time they register a batch of
domain names. Whereas corporate clients sign a one time agreement. 

Paul Stahura commented that in the case of ENOM, resellers showed the
agreement to the registrants when they registered names. If they set up an
account all the agreements shown to the registrants were for all the
registrations that were made in that account, not every time they registered
a name. They were reminded on a yearly basis along with the reminder for
accurate whois data for each name, each year. 

Steve Metalitz suggested looking at the text of the recommendation. 
Registrars have to do 3 things.
1. Tell the registrant during the registration process. Secondly, if the
registrar presents the disclosures with the agreement, it has to have them
broken out of the agreement or separately. Either way they have to
acknowledge each time that they have read and understood the disclosures. It
appears to be flexible and accommodates a lot of different models.

Paul Stahura agreed that the process was flexible but since the discussion
had already taken place there was perhaps a need to spell out an example.
Would you consider someone, who had gone through the whole process, six
months later registering a domain name, not going through the notice process
a second time?.

Steve Metalitz responded that in his opinion, what happened on day one of
the registration process was in compliance with the notification
requirement. 

Marilyn Cade proposed that the level of detail belonged to the policy
implementation of the recommendation which was not envisioned in the pdp
process. Personally and on behalf of the Commercial and Business Users
constituency she felt comfortable that there would be a "regular" (
undefined) disclosure that met the three parts in the recommendation.

>From the discussion that ensued, Marilyn Cade requested whether the issue
could be forwarded to the Council with the suggestion that what the
definition of "during the registration process" should be defined as, should
be determined by an implementation group which could be composed of the task
force or was it thought that the implementation group should be formed
separately.

Jordyn Buchanan commented that there were 2 issues
- agreed that the question of once per batch, domain name, etc. could be
deferred to an implementation group - but a periodic notification
requirement appeared to be policy change that should be reflected in the
text.

Tony Harris commented that notification should be when registering for the
first time and every time a registration was renewed, and in the case of an
automatic renewal process an email could be sent to the registrant with the
automatic renewal.

Paul Stahura commented that emails were not automatically sent to customers
whose domain names were renewed automatically. With regard to registrations
for 10 year periods, a Whois accuracy notification was sent once a year.

Jordyn Buchanan saw possible agreement for revised recommendations that
would be accepted by the council: 
- to tie additional notification onto the wdrp notice. And another,
returning to the general set of comments. Bruce 
- to put such notification in a privacy policy 

Steve Metalitz reminded the group that discussion of details belonged in an
implementation group

Tony Harris suggested a process whereby when a registration is completed
there would be a reply to indicate that it was in order and in that email
the registrant could be asked to acknowledge that the disclosure section has
been read. However this was not in the current RAA and a new process would
have to be created to make it obligatory.

Jordyn Buchanan asked the task force to respond that it was unlikely that
the recommendation would become consensus policy given the opposition from
the registrar and registry constituencies and the weighting of votes at the
council level. Thus, would it be worthwhile to revisit the recommendations
in light of the discussion and the public comments or should they be
forwarded to the council in the present state, recognizing that there is
additional work by the implementation committee, assuming that they are
approved by council.

Tony Harris considered it was worth revisiting to give value to the work
that the task force had done 
Steve Metalitz considered that the registrars and registry representatives
had had adequate time to consider the recommendation and that it should be
referred to an implementation committee.

Marilyn Cade clarified that if a policy was voted on in council and did not
receive the required two thirds majority, but a majority, council could send
it to an implementation committee or to the board as policy recommended by
the council which would thus not be binding as in the case of consensus
policy.

Suggested options:
- with the present discussion it might be feasible to note the policy, the
vote, the questions raised about implementation and the task force could
make a recommendation about how to explore the implementation issue
- for the task force to do more work on implementation itself before sending
the report forward
- the periodic notification issue would not be an implementation issue but a
new adjustment to the recommendations

Jordyn Buchanan proposed

1. Working with Maria on to document the questions and issues arising out of
the discussion that may become implementation questions
- there was more value in forwarding a set of recommendations that was
likely to pass and become consensus policy

2 Encourage on list discussion of possible suggestions, 
- language to forward to the implementation group, 
- adjustments to the recommendations that address these issues

3 If broad support in the task force for adjustments to the recommendations,
they should be modified and discussed before forwarding to the council. 

Time frame:
- to be completed in the next week unless a vote is called for on the
adjustments

- if not, the task force forwards the recommendations to the council.

Marilyn Cade commented that implementation groups can only implement policy,
not change it. Guidance or input from the task force to an implementation
working group may be considered.

Steve Metaltz did not object to the proposals but stated that they were not
consistent with the pdp, and that the report should be forwarded to the
Board. It degraded the work of the task force if after 6 months new issues
came up at the last second and were considered. 

Jordyn Buchanan responded that part of the previous step was to attempt to
reconcile constituency concerns. It was not consistent with the pdp but the
task force agreed that it would be useful to react to the public comments.

Marilyn Cade proposed that providing a definition for ?during the
registration process? may result in sufficient modification that may help to
reach agreement in the task force. 

3  Summary        Final task force report on notification

Maria prepared the final task force report, incorporating summaries of the
public comments.  Unless a substantial changes is made to the
recommendations of the report, there will be no further vote on it by the
task force.  

 

Decisions:

*       Editing changes will be made to the final report; changing of the
title of section 1.2 on public comments to differentiate between different
public comment periods on different topics, complete summary of task force
work process to date. 
*       A list of implementation issues and questions will be circulated to
the list for online discussion on possible suggestions to forward to the
implementation group or adjustments to the recommendation.  If there is
broad support for adjustments to the recommendations, the task force will
modify the recommendations and discuss them further before forwarding to the
Council.  If no substantive changes are made and broadly agreed by Tuesday
24 May, the task force report will be forwarded in its current state to the
Council.     

Actions:

*       Maria to incorporate changes to the final task force report. 
*       Maria/Glen to inquire about the capability of the list software to
give confirmations of messages sent to the public comment forums. 
*       Jordyn/Maria to prepare a list of implementation issues and
questions discussed on the call and circulate to the list for online
discussion. 
*       Following any subsequent mailing list discussion, Jordyn will send a
note to the Council advising them of the steps being taken to resolve any
outstanding undefined issues before 2nd June 2005 (date of the next GNSO
Council meeting).  

 

Topics for next week?s call:

*       Follow-up discussion on recommendation on notification 
*       Discussion of the form of the recommendation on conflicts of laws ?
policy or advice?

 

Jordyn Buchanan thanked everyone for their participation and the call ended
at 17:00 CET