ICANN ICANN Email List Archives

[gnso-dow123]


<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

[gnso-dow123] Draft minutes Whois call 26 July 2005

  • To: gnso-dow123@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Subject: [gnso-dow123] Draft minutes Whois call 26 July 2005
  • From: "GNSO.SECRETARIAT@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx" <gnso.secretariat@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Mon, 08 Aug 2005 23:31:29 +0200

[To: gnso-dow123[at]gnso.icann.org]

Dear All,

Please find attached the draft minutes of the Whois combined task force call held on 26 July 2005.

Please let me know what changes you would like made.

Thank you.
Kind regards,
--
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="26 July 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">&nbsp;</h4>
<h4 align="center"><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><b>WHOIS Task 
Forces 
    1 2 3<br>
  <br>
 26 July 2005 - Minutes</b></font></h4>
<p><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><b>ATTENDEES:<br>
GNSO Constituency representatives:<br>
  </b> Jordyn Buchanan - Chair<br>
  gTLD Registries constituency - Ken Stubbs<br>
gTLD Registries constituency - David Maher <br>
Registrars constituency - Tim Ruiz (alternate)<br>
Registrars constituency - Ross Rader <br>
Registrars constituency - Tom Keller <br>
Non Commercial Users Constituency - Milton Mueller <br>
Commercial and Business Users constituency - Marilyn Cade <br>
  Internet Service and Connectivity Providers constituency - Tony Harris<br>
Internet Service and Connectivity Providers constituency - Maggie Mansourkia 
<br>
  Internet Service and Connectivity Providers constituency - Greg Ruth <br>
  <br>
  <strong>Liaisons</strong><br>
  At-Large Advisory Committee (ALAC) liaisons - Wendy Seltzer</font> <font 
face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"> - absent <br>
  GAC Liaison - Suzanne Sene - absent - apologies <br>
  <br>
  <b>ICANN Staff</b>: <br>
  Olof Nordling - Manager, Policy Development Coordination 
  <br>
  Maria Farrell Farrell - ICANN GNSO Policy Officer <br>
  <b>GNSO Secretariat </b>-  Glen 
    de Saint G&eacute;ry <br>
  <br>
    <b>Absent:</b><br>
    Registrars constituency - Paul Stahura <br>
    Commercial and Business Users Constituency - David Fares     - apologies 
<br>
    Intellectual Property Interests Constituency - Steve Metalitz - apologies 
<br>
Intellectual Property Interests Constituency - Niklas Lagergren - apologies     
<br>
    Non Commercial Users Constituency - Kathy Kleiman <br>
  Non Commercial Users Constituency - Frannie Wellings <br>
  Commercial and Business Users Constituency - Sarah Deutsch   - apologies<br>
  <br>
  <br>
  </font>    <font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong><a 
href="http://gnso-audio.icann.org/WHOIS-20050726-tf123.mp3%20";>MP3 Recording 
</a><br>
  <a href="http://forum.icann.org/lists/gnso-dow123/msg00470.html";>Action point 
summary
  </a><br>
  <br>
Agenda <br>
 1. Discuss and review the constituency statements on the Conflict with 
National Laws procedure due  Thursday 21 July 2005 and next steps on 
recommendation <br> 
 2. Discuss in depth the tiered access documents from task forces 1 and 2 to 
assess usefulness as a framework for any further work.<br>
 <br>
 1. Discuss and review the constituency statements on the conflict with 
national laws procedure due Thursday 21 July 2005 and next steps on  
recommendation </strong></font></p>
<p><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Status of constituency statements 
received:<br>
    <a href="http://forum.icann.org/lists/gnso-dow123/msg00465.html";>The  
Intellectual Property Interests</a>  <br>
    <a href="http://forum.icann.org/lists/gnso-dow123/msg00468.html";>The Non 
Commercial Users constituency on recommendation 2</a>,<br>
<a href="http://forum.icann.org/lists/gnso-dow123/msg00464.html";>gTLD registry 
constituency statements</a><br>
The Registrar  constituency is  14 days out on the conflicts.<br>
The Internet Service Providers and Connectivity Providers constituency end of 
week 29 July 2005 and the remaining on tasks 1 &amp; 2 a week later.<br>
The Non Commercial Users constituency posted their statement on recommendation 
2, the statement  on Whois purpose will be ready in a couple of days. The tasks 
1 &amp;2 on how  the technical and administrative contacts were populated were 
giving the most trouble as there were no serious responses<br>
</font><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>Jordyn</strong> urged 
all the constituencies to submit their statements as soon as possible. <br>
  <br>
  <strong>Brief overview of the constituency statements:
</strong></font></p>
<p><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>David Maher,</strong> the 
<strong>gTLD registries constituency </strong>supported the statement in its 
current form and suggested a system of tiered access to resolve the conflict 
issue. From Steve Metalitz&rsquo;s <a 
href="http://forum.icann.org/lists/gnso-dow123/msg00465.html";>extensive 
memorandum</a> on the subject it would seem as though war has been declared if 
the IPC thinks the present system complies with the European data protection 
laws. There is a  total lack of consensus in the proceeding. <br>
  <br>
<strong>Maggie Mansourkia,</strong> the <strong>ISPCP</strong>  was generally 
supportive, but suggested  some language tweaks about uniformity of the 
process. Ultimately the goal of the ISP was greater accuracy so any movement 
towards that would be supported. </font></p>
<p><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>Milton Mueller 
</strong>commented that the <strong>NCUC</strong> statement was short and 
supported the recommendation. They viewed it as a stop gap measure pending 
comprehensive implementation. </font></p>
<p><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>Ross  Rader 
</strong>stated that  the draft  put to the Registrar constituency was very 
similar to what the task force was pursuing, with one or two minor amendments 
and would likely be supported. The current election/ratification process in the 
constituency,  a 14 day process, needed to be executed.<br>
  <br>
<strong>Jordyn Buchanan </strong>commented, in the absence of an IPC member, 
their statement  appeared to make no major revisions to the actual policy 
recommendations. In general, apart from minor tweaks, it seemed that the task 
force had reached  the point where  work on the recommendations could be 
finalised on the list.  </font></p>
<p><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Timeline:<br>
  Goal:<br>
</font><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"> 23 August or earlier - a 
formal vote of the task force  on the final form of the recommendation <br>
  13 September - Staff would need to do the initial report for public comment 
for 21 days  (would allow the required 7 days to present the document to 
Council ) <br>
  22 September. - Council call is scheduled</font></p>
<font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">It was agreed that if the statements 
were received sooner, the task force could vote earlier. Some task force 
members were of the opinion that the Initial report could be drafted with the 
constituency statements outstanding so as to deliver on time as the formal 
voting process in certain the constituencies took time.</font>
<p><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>Jordyn Buchanan</strong> 
encouraged task force members to work any proposed amendments or modifications 
arising from the constituency statements on the list and if a constituency  was 
likely to suggest modifications, it should be brought  to the attention of the 
mailing list as soon as possible.<br>
  </font></p>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><strong><font face="Arial, 
Helvetica, sans-serif">Action Point Summary </font></strong></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><span 
class="781254415-28072005"><B 
style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal"><font face="Arial, Helvetica, 
sans-serif">1&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; 
Constituency statements on recommendation 2 (conflicts with national data 
protection laws)</font></B><font face="Arial, Helvetica, 
sans-serif"><o:p></o:p></font></span></P>
<P class=MsoNormal 
style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt; mso-layout-grid-align: none"><font face="Arial, 
Helvetica, sans-serif"><span class="781254415-28072005"><B 
style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal"><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></B></span></font></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><font face="Arial, Helvetica, 
sans-serif"><span class="781254415-28072005">Not all of the statements had yet 
been circulated to the list, so discussion on the statements was postponed till 
the next call.&nbsp; <o:p></o:p></span></font></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><font face="Arial, Helvetica, 
sans-serif"><span class="781254415-28072005"><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></span></font></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><font face="Arial, Helvetica, 
sans-serif"><span class="781254415-28072005"><B 
style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal">Actions<o:p></o:p></B></span></font></P>
<UL style="MARGIN-TOP: 0in" type=disc>
  <LI class=MsoNormal 
style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; tab-stops: list 
.5in"><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><span 
class="781254415-28072005">Constituencies that haven&rsquo;t already sent their 
constituency statement to the list are asked to do so as quickly as possible. 
<o:p></o:p> </span>
  </font>
  <LI class=MsoNormal 
style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; tab-stops: list 
.5in"><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><span 
class="781254415-28072005">Participants should alert the task force through the 
mailing list if they believe their constituency statements will propose 
significant amendments to the recommendation. <o:p></o:p> </span>
  </font>
  <LI class=MsoNormal 
style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; tab-stops: list 
.5in"><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><span 
class="781254415-28072005">The task force will work on the mailing list to 
finalise the recommendation. <o:p></o:p> </span>
  </font>
  <LI class=MsoNormal 
style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; tab-stops: list 
.5in"><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><span 
class="781254415-28072005">A formal vote on the recommendations will be taken 
on during the call on 23 August or earlier if the statements are received and 
the discussion sufficiently advanced. <o:p></o:p> </span>
  </font>
  <LI class=MsoNormal 
style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; tab-stops: list 
.5in"><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><span 
class="781254415-28072005">Time will be reserved on the next task force 
conference call (August 9<SUP>th</SUP>) to discuss whether the recommendation 
is ready to be advanced to an initial report. <o:p></o:p></span></font><span 
class="781254415-28072005"><o:p></o:p></span></LI>
</UL>
<p><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>2. Discuss in depth the 
tiered access documents from task forces 1 and 2 to assess usefulness as a 
framework for any further work.</strong><br>
    <strong>Jordyn Buchanan</strong> proposed discussing <a 
href="http://forum.icann.org/lists/gnso-dow123/msg00435.html";>Ross Rader's 
compilation of the previous task force 1&amp;2 recommendations and 
frameworks</a> and <a 
href="http://www.gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/dow1-2tf/msg00125.html";>Thomas
 Roessler's PKI based system</a> on tiered access. The task force was not 
presupposing recommending tiered access as an outcome with regard to task no. 
3.  but it would be useful to review  past work on tiered access to ascertain 
whether there would be agreement on how useful the frameworks would be  if 
other work were necessary. The <a 
href="http://www.gnso.icann.org/issues/whois-privacy/Whois-tf1-preliminary.html";>Task
 Force 1 report </a>made an important distinction  to divide Whois data into 
&quot;sensitive&quot; data and &quot;non-sensitive&quot; data but that the 
definition was left open and it was decided that the issue belonged in task 
force 2. issue.<br>
    <br>
Quoting from the recommendations:
<br>
&quot;1. Dependence on Whois Task Force <BR>
<BR>
The output of this Whois Task Force depends heavily on the output of Whois TF 2 
(which data elements are included in the publicly available Whois). The more 
sensitive the data: (a) the more value there is to the data; (b) the more 
likely such data is to be mined, (c) the more this impacts the privacy rights 
of individuals and (d) creates an incentive for the registrant to make the data 
inaccurate. In such cases, there may be a need to restrict access to that data. 
<BR>
<BR>
2. Value of Whois Data<BR>
<BR>
It is believed that if only data deemed to be non-sensitive by the Internet 
community ("Non-Sensitive Data") were to be publicly displayed (whether on the 
Web, Port 43 or other automated process), the data itself has little value, is 
less likely to be data mined, and has little effect on privacy rights. 
Therefore, imposing restrictions on access to Non-Sensitive data may not be 
necessary.<BR>
<BR>
Note, that we have assumed that the less sensitive the data is, the less 
valuable the data will be and the less data mining will occur. However, there 
is still some value to the information and therefore, there may be a need for 
query limits to prevent denial of service attacks. &quot;<BR>
</font></p>
<p><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>Jordyn Buchanan 
</strong>commented that Port 43 could not identify the user or the use, the 
question had not been put to  the technical briefings the task force had. It 
was one problem, to collect and display data and another to see if it was 
accurate. </font></p>
<p><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Answering Ross Rader's question on 
DRM solutions, to sense of the validity of the conclusion, none were discussed 
in detail, there was a paper from Thomas Roessler, but no experts were brought 
in.</font></p>
<p><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>Jordyn Buchanan</strong> 
commented that the level of appetite for tiered access systems had to be 
assessed, there had to be agreement that going through the work of the task 
forces 1 &amp; 2 was worthy of consideration, which parts of the previous work  
would be useful to adopt,  what was  ongoing work, were there large gaps  of 
work that needed to be done before  continuing along the tiered access path. 
</font></p>
<p><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>Marilyn Cade</strong> 
commented that for a CBUC point of view she was comfortable with closing or 
keeping open the working session on tiered access. However the perception of 
the law enforcement people was that the task force was  examining tiered access 
which created a public view that the work was underway  and the task force 
needed to be responsible for it. </font></p>
<p><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>Ross Rader</strong> 
queried whether the GAC/ Whois task force closed session in Luxembourg 
constituted part of the input to the task force. </font></p>
<p><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>Milton Mueller</strong> 
commented that the task force had got off on the wrong foot. Tiered access was 
not mentioned in the task forces current description of work there were other 
items. Tiered access might emerge from the process as one of the solutions but  
 the present discussion was premature and not relevant to what the task force 
was currently supposed to be doing.<br>
  <br>
  <strong>Ken Stubbs</strong> expressed concern that ICANN could be in a 
position of being caught between different governments with different agencies 
putting increased pressure on privacy issues. </font></p>
<p><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>Tony Harris</strong> 
commented that tiered access did not come out of the blue but was a logical 
development of the privacy issue as the only way to accommodate it would be to 
have tiered access or otherwise  the data would be taken away from everyone 
which would be a problem. Down the road, tiered access if applied was a major 
overhaul of the display and functionality and someone had to figure out who 
would pay for it. </font></p>
<p><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>Jordyn Buchanan</strong> 
responded to Milton, that the task force could drop the discussion but that 
tiered access might be in the scope of task 3 and if it were, the current work 
would not be wasted as given the calendar and progression of topics, it was not 
time that the task force would have  used for something else.<br>
  <br>
</font><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>Tim Ruiz</strong> was 
of the opinion that  the task force should be spending its effort and time on 
resolving the purpose of Whois as <a 
href="http://gnso.icann.org/policies/terms-of-reference.html";>tasks 2 &amp; 3 
in the terms of reference </a>depended on the resolution of the former being. 
</font></p>
<p><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>Marilyn Cade</strong> 
commented that it would be useful for the task force chair, Jordyn Buchanan, to 
join the GNSO Council call in  view  of the council wanting to work 
interactively with the task force.</font></p>
<p><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>Tim Ruiz excused himself 
and left the call. </strong></font></p>
<p><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>Ross Rader 
</strong>commented that recognizing and describing the tiered access systems 
already available that were not  very granular systems, would help destigmatise 
the concept and build bridges. Tucows' had massive database and all employees 
got access to all of it, people who did not work there got less access, other 
registrars got additional levels of detailed access that members of the 
intellectual property  and business community did not get access to, and law 
enforcement agents got complete access.  Cost, structure and implementation 
depended on what might be decided and what the system looked like. Ross 
commented further that  there were things the registrars would be happy to bear 
the cost on. </font></p>
<p><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>Ross Rader</strong>, 
responding to<strong> Marilyn Cade's </strong>question whether the 
interpretation could be extended into proxy and anonymous services said that he 
was referring to the structures that the formal contracts or formal policy had 
&lsquo;forced upon us'. Informally or anecdotally  local disruptions had been 
adopted, without judging whether they were good or bad, that were not an 
intention of current policy and thus a form of tiered access already existed. 
</font></p>
<p><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>Tony Harris</strong> 
withdrew his remarks about  cost after hearing Ross Rader who went on to say it 
was an acknowledgement that  &quot;there are thick and expensive and light and 
inexpensive ways to do things&quot;.<br>
    <strong>Ross Rader</strong> clarified that his <a 
href="http://forum.icann.org/lists/gnso-dow123/msg00435.html";>document</a> was 
only an attempt to frame tiered access. </font></p>
<p><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>Jordyn Buchanan summarised 
the discussion on cost: </strong><br> 
1. there were more and less costly approaches to implementing tiered access.<br>
2. 
there may be circumstances where registrars would be willing to bear some costs 
but not apply to any costs.<br>
<br>
Thus<strong> Jordyn</strong>  concluded that  registrars would bear lower cost 
systems but not higher cost ones, to which <strong>Ross</strong> responded that 
he would not give an  answer to that, but proposed looking at solutions that 
made sense, calculate the cost, and then figure out how to pay for them. 
</font></p>
<p><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>Marilyn Cade</strong> 
asked whether, given the diversity of business models among the registrars, 
there would have to be agreement from them in the RAA to implement  the 
cost?</font></p>
<p><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>Jordyn Buchanan</strong> 
responded that when  recommendations were made,  the impact on the contracts 
would need to be assessed. There were rules on obtaining approval from the 
registrar constituency, and although there were several hundred registrars, a 
group of registrars only had one vote if they were under common control. 
</font></p>
<p><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>Ross Rader</strong> added 
that the constituency was not the comprehensive list of the total number of 
accredited registrars. There were currently about 55 members and the voting 
rules required a majority. The bylaws made provision for pooling of interest 
restrictions  that prevented essentially multiple accreditations controlling 
the vote. For example, at one point one of the largest registrars had 4 
accreditations, they only had one vote. In any vote, there are 17-25 votes 
normally needed to carry the vote. Another example,   register.com had 2 
subsidiaries but only  one vote. So if there happened to be a company with 200 
subsidiaries accredited, they would still only have one vote.</font><font 
face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"> If the top 80% equaled 35 registrars, the 
membership of the constituency would get you to that level.</font></p>
<p><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>Jordyn Buchanan 
</strong>in summary: <br> 
  1. A statement of how the existing system provided a state of rough tiered 
access. <br>
There had been some work  on how proxy services were done by task force 2 but 
framing it in the status quo of the tiered access system was not explicitly 
pursued in the past.  <br>
  2. Request the  staff  to take a look at what data element registrars are 
required to collect at present that they were not required to display on Whois, 
that is part of the contractual agreement<br>
3. Request the staff to review the work done by previous task forces on proxy 
services and provide key findings. </font></p>
<p><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">There will be staff resources 
available during Maria's leave period.<br>
  <br>
  <strong>Proposed 
Agenda for the next call :</strong></font></p>
<p><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>9 August 2005  
</strong><br>
  Discuss the recommendation on conflict with national laws and ascertain 
whether an  advance could be made to an initial report. <br>
  Substantive discussion on the purpose of Whois,  ensure constituency 
statements are present. </font></p>
<p><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>  </strong></font><font 
face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">The next Whois task force 
teleconference:<br>
  <a href="http://www.gnso.icann.org/calendar/#aug";>Tuesday 9 August 2005 at 
9:30 EST 13:30 UTC
  <br>
  </a><br>
    <strong>Jordyn Buchanan </strong>thanked all the task force members for 
participating.</font></p>
<p><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>The WHOIS task force call 
ended at 17 :00 CET </strong></font></p>
<p> <font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><br>
</font></p>
<p><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">-</font></p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p> </p>
<p> </p>
<p> </p>
<p>&nbsp; </p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<h1>&nbsp;</h1>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p align="center">&nbsp;</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>


<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Cookies Policy