Re: [gnso-dow123] WHOIS task force draft minutes 1 November 2005

["Jordyn A. Buchanan" <jordyn@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Hi Marilyn:

We've discussed the definition from Whois-tech in the context of the  
overall purpose of Whois before, but not in the context of the  
definition of the technical contact, which is why I posed the  
question about the sufficiency of that definition with regards to the  
tech contact.

Thanks for clarifying the BC view on this issue.

Jordyn


On Nov 22, 2005, at 7:51 AM, Marilyn Cade wrote:

> Dear all,
>
> I will repeat the BC's view on the technical contact definition. We  
> are not
> satisfied with this definition and its narrowness and want the  
> following
> phrase included:
>
> "And to resolve those matters where it is necessary to get in touch  
> with a
> technical contact for the registered domain name in order to resolve
> technical/networking problems or difficulties related to or  
> affecting the
> Internet or another web site of a technical nature."
>
> I've mentioned this several times, and I'd like to have the TF  
> include my
> input in the readout, whatever it is, in VC, and in the documents  
> we are
> discussing.
>
> The ISPs may have other suggestions on their own, and David Fares/ 
> Sarah/I
> may have other BC comments as we progress this work area.
>
> For the BC, we will not be able to support a technical definition  
> that is
> limited to only registration issues. While that may satisfy the  
> registrars
> interests, it does not fulfill the needs of the business  
> community,  nor the
> ISPs or networking providers.
>
> While some may suggest that the WHOIS for IP addresses is  
> "sufficient", in
> fact it is not, and the enforcement teams of large networking  
> providers and
> businesses that I advise are clear that they use both WHOIS/DNS, and
> WHOIS/IP to deal with network technical issues.
>
> Talk to all on the call.
>
> Regards, Marilyn
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-gnso-dow123@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso- 
> dow123@xxxxxxxxx] On
> Behalf Of GNSO.SECRETARIAT@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Sent: Monday, November 21, 2005 2:48 PM
> To: gnso-dow123@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: [gnso-dow123] WHOIS task force draft minutes 1 November 2005
>
> [To: gnso-dow123[at]gnso.icann.org]
>
> Dear All,
>
> Please find  the draft minutes of the Whois task force call held
> on 1 November 2005.
> Please let me know what changes you would like made.
>
> Thank you.
> Kind regards,
> Glen
>
> WHOIS Task Force
> 1 November 2005 - Minutes
> ATTENDEES:
> GNSO Constituency representatives:
> Jordyn Buchanan - Chair
> gTLD Registries constituency - David Maher
> gTLD Registries constituency - Ken Stubbs
> Registrars constituency - Ross Rader
> Intellectual Property Interests Constituency - Steve Metalitz
> Internet Service and Connectivity Providers constituency - Greg Ruth
> Internet Service and Connectivity Providers constituency - Maggie
> Mansourkia
> Non Commercial Users Constituency - Kathy Kleiman
> Commercial and Business Users Constituency - David Fares
> Commercial and Business Users constituency - Marilyn Cade joined the
> call late
>
>
> Liaisons
> At-Large Advisory Committee (ALAC) liaisons - Wendy Seltzer - aplogies
> GAC Liaison - Suzanne Sene - absent - apologies
> ICANN Staff:
> Olof Nordling - Manager, Policy Development Coordination - absent -
> apologies
> Maria Farrell Farrell - ICANN GNSO Policy Officer
> GNSO Secretariat - Glen de Saint Géry
>
> Absent:
> gTLD Registries constituency - Phil Colebrook - apologies
> gTLD Registries constituency - Tuli Day
> Intellectual Property Interests Constituency - Niklas Lagergren -  
> apologies
> Commercial and Business Users Constituency - Sarah Deutsch
> Registrars constituency - Paul Stahura
> Registrars constituency - Tim Ruiz (alternate)
> Registrars constituency - Tom Keller
> Internet Service and Connectivity Providers constituency - Tony  
> Harris -
> apologies
> Non Commercial Users Constituency - Milton Mueller
> Non Commercial Users Constituency - Frannie Wellings
>
> MP3 Recording
>
> Agenda:
> Item 1 Brief review of constituency statements on the purpose of  
> contacts
> Item 2: Scope of the Whois as a broad tool versus narrow tool
>
> Whois task force terms of reference
> Item 2) Define the purpose of the Registered Name Holder,  
> technical, and
> administrative contacts, in the context of the purpose of WHOIS,  
> and the
> purpose for which the data was collected. Use the relevant definitions
> from Exhibit C of the Transfers Task force report as a starting point
> (from http://www.icann.org/gnso/transfers-tf/report-exhc-12feb03.htm)
>
> Item 1 Brief review of constituency statements on the purpose of  
> contacts
> Constituency statements
>
> Steve Metalitz reported on the Intellectual Property Interests
> constituency statement
> Currently there was no consistency of the terms and a better
> understanding of how to populate the data fields would be helpful. The
> IPC considered the registered name holder should be the ultimately
> responsible party, also the entity allowed to transfer the domain  
> name,
> and that information should be public. The technical contact should
> ensure operational stability and security.
> The admin contact had 2 purposes:
> - to give the registrar a clearly identified voice to manage the  
> domain
> name, and
> - to give the public a point of contact regarding the website, for the
> site content, legal process, etc. The Transfers Task Force  
> definition of
> admin contact was ambiguous as it viewed the latter as the  
> authoritative
> point of contact, but secondary to the domain name holder.The  
> registered
> name holder had ultimate authority over and responsible for use of the
> domain name, corresponding website or internet resource but could
> designate the authorized point of contact.
> Ross Rader commented that if it was presumed appropriate to start
> tracking the link between domain names and Internet resources, that  
> the
> resources should be enumerated in some form.
>
> Maggie Mansourkia reported on the ISPCP statement which stated that  
> the
> registered name holder, was the person who initiated the use of the
> domain name, was responsible for everything associated with the domain
> and owned the domain name. The technical contact was the person
> responsible for security or interoperability issues, and was the  
> contact
> the ISPs usually interacted with the most. The constituency discussed
> the admin contact, whether it was a different person and considered it
> the appropriate contact to address business or legal issues associated
> with the domain name.
> Kathy Kleiman reported on the Non Commercial Users Constituency
> statement that took a slightly different approach. As task 2 in the
> Terms of Reference asked to provide "purpose" in context of purpose of
> WHOIS, the NCUC considered that purpose within the scope of ICANN was
> the technical purpose. The NCUC referred to the Transfers task force
> definition and agreed that the material collected by the technical
> contact had to be relevant and not excessive for the purpose.
>
> Steve Metalitz asked for clarification on how the NCUC concluded that
> the technical contact was often not a person and the registered name
> holder was a person.
>
> Kathy Kleiman explained that the information was gathered from some  
> NCUC
> members who had been surveyed, discussions on line, and years of  
> working
> in the field, as an attorney and as a non commercial organization but
> this could vary from business user registrants.
> Jordyn Buchanan noted that although the terms of reference required  
> that
> the purpose of WHOIS be considered in the context of national and
> international laws, the views of the global WHOIS policy could not be
> based on any one jurisdiction and its legal framework.
>
> Ross Rader, reporting for the Registrar's constituency stated that the
> purpose of the contacts was well bound up in the purpose of WHOIS  
> itself.
> The definition on p. 9 of the Registrar's submission: Registrant  
> purpose
> – to provide a entity of response. Admin contact purpose - to provide
> contact information for individual or entity to provide assistance to
> third parties on administrative issues. Technical contact purpose -  
> for
> assistance regarding technical management of the zone.
> The information associated with the registrant was discussed, a lot  
> was
> extraneous, most was not related to the delegation itself and most  
> could
> be removed from the WHOIS system. Similarly, other end user contacts
> have become closely related over the years and little distinguishes  
> them
> in the mind of end users. They could be redefined to give relevant  
> data
> which could provide a subset of the current data which could, for
> example, fall into the bucket of business data
>
> Jordyn Buchanan asked a clarifying question: If it was the view of the
> NCUC and/or Registrars that contacts were not correctly part of the
> WHOIS data set, would their view be that the terms should not be
> defined? If so, if an entity wanted to publish an additional set of
> WHOIS data, they would not be able to, e.g. an admin contact. Would  
> that
> not be an option available to a registrant?
>
> Ross Rader responded that the registrars had tried to define the
> existing construct. There was a new content type that made the
> publication more optional such as having an operational point of
> contact. Allowing for the current practice allowed registrars to  
> publish
> additional information in the WHOIS and there was no reason to  
> restrict
> the practice. In addition it allowed users to be more interactive with
> the records and their contents.
>
> Kathy Kleiman responded that the NCUC believed registrants should be
> allowed to opt in to include additional information.
>
> David Fares reported for the CBUC which identified the registered name
> holder as the person responsible for canceling and transferring a  
> domain
> name, the tech contact was responsible for responding to and handling
> technical inquiries and should be competent to do so, the admin  
> contact
> was responsible for content on the site. In general the CBUC  
> considered
> it important to clarify the information provided and called for
> consistent terminology.
>
> Jordyn Buchanan summarised the constituency presentations saying that
> there appeared to be common ground on most definitions, and the  
> biggest
> gap seemed to be whether the admin contact should be responsible for
> content.
>
> Action:
>
> Proposed that Maria complete the compilation, posted on on August 26
> 2005, of the constituency statements on the 'purpose'.
> Proposed a side by side comparison of each of the various terms in the
> text from the constituencies.
>
> Item 2: Scope of the Whois as a broad tool versus narrow tool
>
> Whether the purpose of WHOIS was narrow in scope and focused
> specifically on factors relating to the registration of the domain  
> name,
> or whether it was a broader repository of contact information  
> related to
> any issues on the use of a domain name, regardless of whether they had
> to do with registration or not.
>
> Jordyn Buchanan suggested given the agreement in the task force that
> technical issues related to the domain name registration or delegation
> were in the scope of the purpose of WHOIS,
> sometimes the person who resolved those problems was not the same  
> as the
> person who resolved other technical issues, did that apply that if the
> purpose of WHOIS was broader than registration and delegation issues,
> more types of technical contact were needed to deal with those other
> issues, e.g. dns and spam issues.
>
> Steve Metalitz commented that rather than look at a granular level,
> another approach would be to have a high level definition of what  
> these
> contacts were supposed to do, a contact point who would find the
> appropriate person to address that problem
>
> Marilyn Cade joined the call.
>
> Ross Rader agreed with Steve and added that it would be difficult  
> at any
> level to enact policy that included the broader purpose.
>
> Marilyn Cade commented that it could vary from company to company
> depending on the size of the company.
>
> More information would be needed on how the fields were populated.
>
> Next call 8 November 2005
>
> Action Items for next call:
>
> a. TF members to discuss on-list what data gathering, if any, might be
> useful on how the various WHOIS contact fields are populated. What
> approaches would be useful?
>
> b. Jordyn will email framing questions to the list to guide the  
> discussion.
>
> c. Task force members who support the idea of a broader purpose for  
> the
> technical contact are encouraged to consider if a larger data set is
> needed to support this, and what form it might take.
>
> d. Continue discussion on next week’s task force call
>
> Jordyn Buchanan thanked all the task force members for participating.
>
> The WHOIS task force call ended at 16 :50 CET
>
> WHOIS Task Force’s terms of reference (June 2005) which includes the
> definitions provided by the Transfers Task Force.
>
> Define the purpose of the Registered Name Holder, technical, and
> administrative contacts, in the context of the purpose of WHOIS,  
> and the
> purpose for which the data was collected. Use the relevant definitions
> from Exhibit C of the Transfers Task force report as a starting point
> (from http://www.icann.org/gnso/transfers-tf/report-exhc-12feb03.htm):
>
> "Contact: Contacts are individuals or entities associated with domain
> name records. Typically, third parties with specific inquiries or
> concerns will use contact records to determine who should act upon
> specific issues related to a domain name record. There are typically
> three of these contact types associated with a domain name record, the
> Administrative contact, the Billing contact and the Technical contact.
>
> Contact, Administrative: The administrative contact is an individual,
> role or organization authorized to interact with the Registry or
> Registrar on behalf of the Domain Holder. The administrative contact
> should be able to answer non-technical questions about the domain  
> name's
> registration and the Domain Holder. In all cases, the Administrative
> Contact is viewed as the authoritative point of contact for the domain
> name, second only to the Domain Holder.
>
> Contact, Billing: The billing contact is the individual, role or
> organization designated to receive the invoice for domain name
> registration and re-registration fees.
>
> Contact, Technical: The technical contact is the individual, role or
> organization that is responsible for the technical operations of the
> delegated zone. This contact likely maintains the domain name server 
> (s)
> for the domain. The technical contact should be able to answer  
> technical
> questions about the domain name, the delegated zone and work with
> technically oriented people in other zones to solve technical problems
> that affect the domain name and/or zone.
> Domain Holder: The individual or organization that registers a  
> specific
> domain name. This individual or organization holds the right to use  
> that
> specific domain name for a specified period of time, provided certain
> conditions are met and the registration fees are paid. This person or
> organization is the "legal entity" bound by the terms of the relevant
> service agreement with the Registry operator for the TLD in question."
>
> --
> Glen de Saint Géry
> GNSO Secretariat - ICANN
> gnso.secretariat[at]gnso.icann.org
> http://gnso.icann.org