[gnso-dow123] WHOIS tf teleconf dratf minutes 27 September 2005
[To: gnso-dow123[at]gnso.icann.org] Dear All, Attached please find the draft minutes of the WHOIS task force meeting held on 27 September 2005. Please let me know what changes you would like 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 Force teleconference minutes"-->
<!--#set var="pagetitle" value="WHOIS Task Force teleconference minutes"-->
<!--#set var="pagedate" value="27 September 2005" value=""-->
<!--#set var="bgcell" value="#ffffff"-->
<!--#include virtual="/header.shtml"-->
<!--#exec cmd="/usr/bin/perl /etc/gnso/menu.pl 'WHOIS Task Force teleconference
minutes'"-->
<h4 align="center"> </h4>
<h4 align="center"><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><b>WHOIS Task
Force<br>
<br>
27 September 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 - David Maher <br>
gTLD Registries constituency - Phil Colebrook <br>
gTLD Registries constituency - Ken Stubbs<br>
Registrars constituency - Ross Rader <br>
Intellectual Property Interests Constituency - Steve Metalitz<br>
Intellectual Property Interests Constituency - Niklas Lagergren<br>
Internet Service and Connectivity Providers constituency - Tony Harris <br>
Internet Service and Connectivity Providers constituency - Maggie Mansourkia
<br>
Non Commercial Users Constituency - Kathy Kleiman<br>
Non Commercial Users Constituency - Milton Mueller<br>
<br>
<br>
<strong>Liaisons</strong><br>
At-Large Advisory Committee (ALAC) liaisons - Wendy Seltzer - apologies <br>
GAC Liaison - Suzanne Sene - absent - apologies <br>
<b>ICANN Staff</b>: <br>
Maria Farrell Farrell - ICANN GNSO Policy Officer <br>
<b>GNSO Secretariat </b>- Glen
de Saint Géry <br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<b>Absent:</b><br>
Registrars constituency - Tim Ruiz (alternate)<br>
Registrars constituency - Paul Stahura <br>
Internet Service and Connectivity Providers constituency - Greg Ruth <br>
gTLD Registries constituency - Tuli Day <br>
Non Commercial Users Constituency - Frannie Wellings<br>
Commercial and Business Users Constituency - David Fares - apologies<br>
Commercial and Business Users Constituency - Sarah Deutsch - apologies<br>
Commercial and Business Users constituency - Marilyn Cade - apologies<br>
Registrars constituency - Tom Keller - apologies <br>
<br>
<strong><a href="http://gnso-audio.icann.org/WHOIS-20050927-tf.mp3";>MP3
Recording </a><br>
<br>
Action Summary - Maria Farrell <br>
</strong></font></p>
<p><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>Agenda<br>
1 WHOIS Task Force work plan <br>
2. The purpose of WHOIS , whether the contact information should be for the
registrant itself or some agent of the registrant or the registrant.<br>
3. OAB
<br>
<br>
Steve Metalitz suggested an update of constituency statements
<br>
</strong> </font></p>
<p><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>1 WHOIS Task Force work
plan </strong><strong></strong></font><br>
<font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Jordyn Buchanan proposed the
following work plan and timelines:<br>
</font><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Preliminary reports on the
purpose of WHOIS and the WHOIS contacts before the Vancouver meeting.<br>
<br>
11 October - substantive discussion based on email work on the purpose WHOIS .
Summarise the technical and legal definitions from the email lists,
incorporate the notion of agent versus registrant.<br>
<br>
Middle October - circulate the issues around the purpose of the contacts of
WHOIS <br>
25 October- proposed task force vote on a preliminary report on purpose WHOIS
<br>
<br>
8 November - final call on the substance of the purpose of the contacts. <br>
<br>
15 or 22 November - preliminary report on the purpose of the contacts.
</font></p>
<p><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"> In parallel, ongoing work on the
<a
href="http://www.gnso.icann.org/issues/whois-privacy/tf-prelim-rpt-12sep05.htm";>recommendation
</a>and advice on a procedure for handling conflicts between a
registrar/registry's legal obligations under privacy laws and their contractual
obligations to ICANN <br>
when the public comment period finishes on 2 October in a relatively small
window on the proposed calls. </font></p>
<p><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>Niklas Lagergren</strong>
reported on the Accuracy working group mandated by the <a
href="http://www.gnso.icann.org/meetings/minutes-gnso-18aug05.shtml";>GNSO
Council </a><br>
The GNSO agrees to create a working group, with a representative group of
volunteers, Councillors or non councillors, to work with the ICANN staff to
review the effectiveness and compliance of the current contractual requirements
with respect to WHOIS accuracy. The group will take as input <BR>
(1) the WDPRS report released on March 31st 2004,<BR>
(2) the WDRP report released on November 20th 2004, and <BR>
(3) the impact of ICANN's compliance plan.<BR>
The working group, chaired by Niklas Lagergren would report ot the GNSO
without prejudice to the ongoing work of the task force and the paragraph in
the work items on accuracy.<br>
<br>
</font><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>Jordyn
Buchanan</strong>, responding to <strong>Steve Metalitz,</strong> commented
that the group would continue to make progress on accuracy but more productive
work would depend on knowing the underlying purpose of WHOIS thus until there
was more clarity about the definition of WHOIS, the work items – access
and accuracy – would be deferred.<br>
<br>
The task force agreed in general to the work plan and time lines.
</font></p>
<p><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"> <strong>2. The purpose of WHOIS,
a definition of the legal and technical issues, whether the contact information
should be for the registrant itself or some agent of the registrant.<br>
</strong>Jordyn Buchanan reminded the group that the work had been split in 2
subgroups, legal and technical. Task force members were free to join whichever
group they chose or subscribe to both. Working via the mailing lists would
obviate frequent task force calls.</font></p>
<p><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">The mailing lists set up for 2
subgroups, legal and technical, were reported to have problems.<br>
Glen would look into the problem, send out a list of subscribers and add task
force members to lists at their request.</font> </p>
<p><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">2 Weeks 11 October 2005 - Deadline
for the subgroup work</font><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">. <br>
<br>
<strong>Constituency statements on the purpose of WHOIS <br>
Outstanding statements:</strong></font></p>
<p><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"> <strong>Registrar statements
</strong>on the purpose of whois and the purpose of the contacts. <br>
<strong>NCUC statement </strong>on the purpose of the contacts.<br>
<strong><br>
Jordyn Buchanan</strong> urged the constituencies to provide their statements
within 2 weeks. </font></p>
<p><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>Kathy Kleiman</strong>
reported that the NCUC had just completed their public notice period on the
purpose of the contacts.<br>
<strong>Ross Rader</strong> reported the registrars would provide a
statement and then take it through the constituency process to make it official
with the aim to have the final official statement in the task force
report</font></p>
<p><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>Jordyn Buchanan</strong>
gave a high level summary of the other constituency views on the purpose of
WHOIS - whether WHOIS was intended to provide information for the registrant or
some agent of the registrant. <br>
<br>
Both the iISP and IPC statements specifically indicated the registrant and did
not make provision for others, whereas the CBUC and the NCUC statements made
it relatively clear that some agent of the person could be contacted while the
gTLD Registry constituency was harder to characterize as the information should
only be available to the registrar for the purpose of billing.</font></p>
<p><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>Jordyn Buchanan
</strong>posed the question to the IPC whether they wanted to start with the
registrant or have a technical contact be the first contact. Which was
important, that the registrant was contacted or someone who could fix the
problem?</font></p>
<p><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>Maggie Mansourkia</strong>
commented that it would certainly be the latter and a technical agent would be
desirable.</font></p>
<p><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>Niklas Lagergren</strong>
commented that from the IPC perspective the key issue was speed, usually the
registrant would be the fastest way to resolve a specific domain name problem,
but it would depend on the problem. In the case of copyright infringement it
would be necessary to get to the source of the problem as quickly as possible.
whereas a technical problem with a domain name, contacting the registrant
first could produce the desired result.<br>
The IPC considered the privacy/proxy services provided by the registrars in
case of a dispute, </font><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"> an
interesting idea.</font></p>
<p><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>Jordyn Buchanan
</strong>further enquired whether it was the intent in the IPC statement to
prohibit privacy/proxy services, if the registrar data showed up in the WHOIS?
The IPC statement currently provided for contact information for the
registrant, but the proxy services might provide information for an agent of
the registrant and act as their public face. So would the IPC position be that
those types of services were inconsistent with the purpose of WHOIS or would
there be no problem?</font></p>
<p><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>Niklas Lagergren</strong>
responded that it would not be a problem if the entity holding the information
had the power to act on behalf of the registrant and gave the following
example: <br>
if a domain holder needed to be contacted for licensing purposes or because it
was noted that on a specific website or domain name a pre-released movie
appeared as yet unavailable theatrically, a proxy service, solving the problem
in a timely manner could do the trick as speed was the key issue.</font></p>
<p><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>Jordyn Buchanan
</strong>referred to the <a
href="http://forum.icann.org/lists/gnso-dow123/msg00539.html";>CBUC statement on
the purpose of the Whois database:<br>
"
</a>A database of contact information sufficient to contact the registrant or
their agent(s) to enable the prompt resolution of technical, legal and other
matters relating to the registrant’s registration and use of its domain
name."<br>
and posed the question whether </font><font face="Arial, Helvetica,
sans-serif">the task force considered it reasonable to allow the purpose of the
WHOIS to include the notion of agency in the "prompt resolution of
issues."<br>
<br>
It was argued that the above was existing policy but that there could be
notions in the status quo that might or might not be in the purpose of WHOIS.
</font></p>
<p><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">There was broad agreement among
the ISP, IPC, NCUC and gTLD registries representatives that, the notion of
the registrant or their agent combined with the notion of the prompt resolution
of various problems in the purposes of the WHOIS would not be an issue for the
constituencies.</font></p>
<p><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>Ross Rader
</strong>preferred to comment after seeing the proposition in writing and but
said that it was desirable to separate what could be policy, versus guidelines
that would not be in the policy, such as speed of response, and although
sympathetic to the discussion believed that speed of response was not a
controllable factor.</font> </p>
<p><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>Next Call:<br>
11 October 2005<br>
Synthesise the various threads on the purpose of WHOIS <br>
Discuss Public comments on <a
href="http://www.gnso.icann.org/issues/whois-privacy/tf-prelim-rpt-12sep05.htm";>recommendation
2 <br>
</a></strong><br>
</font><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><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 16 :20 CET </strong></font></p>
<p> <font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><br>
</font></p>
<p><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">-</font></p>
<p> </p>
<p> </p>
<p> </p>
<p> </p>
<p> </p>
<p> </p>
<h1> </h1>
<p> </p>
<p align="center"> </p>
<p> </p>
|