[gnso-dow123] WHOIS task force teleconference transcription 13 June 2006
[To: gnso-dow123[at]gnso.icann.org] Dear task force members, Please find a transcript of the call in June 13 2006. The transcription ended before the end of the call, but the main topics were captured. Please let me know if you have any comments before I post it on the website. Thank you very much. Kind regards, Glen
Transcript 13 June 2006 ATTENDEES: GNSO Constituency representatives: Jordyn Buchanan - Chair gTLD Registries constituency - Simon Sheard Registrars constituency - Ross Rader Registrars constituency - Tom Keller Registrars constituency - Paul Stahura Internet Service and Connectivity Providers constituency - Tony Harris Intellectual Property Interests Constituency - Steve Metalitz Commercial and Business Users constituency - Marilyn Cade Commercial and Business Users Constituency - David Fares Non Commercial Users Constituency - Kathy Kleiman Nominating Committee appointee - Avri Doria Liaisons At-Large Advisory Committee (ALAC) liaisons - Wendy Seltzer GAC Liaison - Suzanne Sene - absent ICANN Staff: Olof Nordling - Manager, Policy Development coordination GNSO Secretariat - Glen de Saint Géry Absent: gTLD Registries constituency - Ken Stubbs - excused Internet Service and Connectivity Providers constituency - Maggie Mansourkia -excused Commercial and Business Users Constituency - Sarah Deutsch Non Commercial Users Constituency - Milton Mueller Intellectual Property Interests Constituency - Niklas Lagergren gTLD Registries constituency - David Maher - excused Non Commercial Users Constituency - Frannie Wellings Registrars constituency - Tim Ruiz (alternate) MP3 Recording Note: The following is the output of transcribing from an audio recording of the WHOIS Task Force teleconference on 13 June 2006. Although the transcription is largely accurate, in some cases it is incomplete or inaccurate due to inaudible passages or transcription errors. It is posted as an aid to understanding the proceedings at the session, but should not be treated as an authoritative record. Jordyn: ...and that I did email around a proposed definition of the operational proposal we had discussed that, and also had discussed some of the other questions that we had raised in the last call, including whether or not how we're feeling about essentially replacing the admin and tech contact positions with operational contact, and also.. what was the other question I had brought up as well.. But I'd like to spend the majority of the call once again focused on those discussions. We'll once again reserve a bit of time at the end of the call to discuss goings-on in Marrakech, and if we think it's necessary for further planning for Marrakech we may have to (as opposed to using up some of the time on this call), we may have to set up another call to do that. Anything else anyone wants to add to the agenda? Steve: Jordyn, this is Steve Metalitz, I just wanted to let you know I joined. Jordyn: Hi Steve. Speaker 1: If we could just run down who is on the call, that would be great. Jordyn: Yeah, sure, Glen can you run through the list? Glen: [heavy static and feedback driven roll call] Steve: I'm here. Glen: [continues with the heavy static] Has anyone joined? Marilyn: Glen, it's Marilyn. Glen: Thank you Marilyn. Marilyn: I hear an echo, did that start when I joined? Glen: No it did not. Marilyn: Well, I'm going to put you on mute. Jordyn: Okay, so the total I have for this call is Ross, Tony Harris, Simon, Kathy, David Ferris, Marilyn, Steve and Avri. Did I miss anyone? There you go, Kathy. Kathy: Thank you. Jordyn: Okay. Any other additions to the agenda? Otherwise, we'll go ahead and start. Great. Someone else just joined. Wendy: Hi, it's Wendy. Jordyn: Hey Wendy. Kathy: Hi Wendy. Jordyn: Okay, I want to start off. I sent out a list of proposed definition of the operational point of contact based on some of our discussion last, well, I guess two weeks ago. I'll just read that out really quickly again if people don't have it in front of them. And once again, we're trying to define here for our terms of reference number two, http://gnso.icann.org/policies/terms-of-reference.html we're trying to define the purpose of the various contacts, so, the definition I guess is couched in that way. My initial draft was, "The purpose of the operational point of contact is to resolve or reliably pass on data to resolve operational issues related to a domain name. At a minimum, this must include the resolution of issues relating to the configuration of the records associated with the domain name within a DNS server. The operational point of contact may also be capable of resolving additional types of issues based on an agreement with the registered name holder to do so." So, I would ask if people have thoughts on if we've got a good definition, or if there are changes that can be made to make it more acceptable. Steve: Jordyn, this is Steve. I think -- I apologize for the echo here. I think this does reflect the discussion we had on the last call. I would just point out that I'm not sure the third sentence really adds anything. Obviously, the operational point of contact might have all kinds of agreements with the registered name holder or somebody else to do other things, but it seems to me that the only task that they must do is the one in the second sentence. Jordyn: Right, I think that's true. I guess what I was trying to do there is to avoid people implicitly thinking that the scope might expand beyond that without necessarily that agreement with the registrar. So maybe that can be clarified. Marilyn: Jordyn, it's Marilyn. I have a question. Jordyn: Yeah, Marilyn, go ahead. Marilyn: I would support the idea that a registrar may have private contracts, but I'm not sure that goes into a policy statement unless there's a need to say that, and in that case, if we feel the need to say that, we would need to stay consistent with applicable national law, maybe, or something like that. But I'm concerned as I read this, yes, this may reflect the discussion, but I believe that there is a minority opinion or an opinion of some participants on the task force that doesn't think this minimum definition is adequate. And I wonder how we're going to capture that. Jordyn: I think, Marilyn, my initial goal is to make sure that we -- there were several times on the last call that we posed questions, and people said, 'Well, I don't know the answer to that question because I don't know what "operational contacts" mean.' Marilyn: Yeah. Jordyn: So I think for the purpose of being able to have those other discussions, I think we need to sort of settle what we'll use as a working definition. I think independent of that, if there are -- if at the end of this process, if we have sort of a framework in which there are still constituencies that are still unhappy with the overall result of the framework, then we will want to make sure that gets reflected in our work. But I think we do have to sort of agree on some sort of coherent definition of what we mean when we're talking about the rest of the proposal, otherwise you can't even say that you don't like the rest of the proposal, because you don't know what -- there'll be no sort of "cake" term in the middle of it, that we don't understand what we're talking about. Marilyn: I understand, but the term 'operational issue', while we may not know what it means, we can certainly look 'operational' up in a dictionary or have a conversation, and I think it is too narrow to appropriately capture the concerns of my constituency. So my question is really I want to be sure that the minutes capture the expression of this concern and what you just said that indicate if later some constituencies continue to feel that this definition is too narrow that goes forward in our work and any representations of our work to the council. Ross: Marilyn, if I could request a clarification. I don't understand the proposal you're making. I hear you advocating a position, but I'm not sure what – Marilyn: No, actually, I'm not advocating a position, I'm asking to have my concern documented in the minutes – Ross: That's fine, but what's the, do you have a proposal to expand on this definition? Is there a compromise here that I haven't heard? Marilyn: The term 'operational issue', I believe, is too narrow to capture the concerns of my constituency. Ross: Yeah, you said that. But what's the compromise? Is there a counterproposal, or a suggestion, or a word that we could use that would make you feel comfortable? Marilyn: Ah, when we talk about the definition of 'operational', if we can incorporate a concerned feeling with network attack with other conflicts or problems that are encountered by the registrant and by the users of the WHOIS database, that may address my concern. Ross: So we would need to scrap our purpose of WHOIS in order to do that, though. Marilyn: Well, Ross, that is your perspective, it doesn't happen to be mine, and I respect your right to have a perspective, but I respect my right to have a perspective. Ross: But that's n -- What I'm asking with the question is, is there any way that we can accommodate your requirements in the context of the discussion? I'm hearing you say, 'No!' So, what -- is there a proposal you're making, or is this simply you want your comments on the record and that's the end of the request? Marilyn: I am so sorry, I'm having a real difficulty understanding because of the echo. Speaker 1: Paul [unintelligible] has joined. Ross: Glen, is there any way we could remove the echo from the line? Glen: Shall we try and stop the call and we call again, I think that's the only way, because there's no operator on the call. Marilyn: I can provide a different bridge, but that may not work because other people may be joining late. Jordyn: Yeah, yeah, I [garbled], just the phone number. Glen: Shall we all redial the same number again? Marilyn: Do we need -- Jordyn: That's fine, let's not use an operator on the line or something. We should probably just leave it as is. Glen: Otherwise.. Tony Harris: Could I suggest something? Glen: Yes? Tony Harris: This is Tony Harris. Why doesn't everybody in turn speak a few words and we'll see who has an echo? Jordyn: But I thought we all have an echo is the problem. Glen: Yeah, I think somebody has an echo for all of us. And if we still try muting, *6. Jordyn: Yeah, if everyone tries to mute except for when they're talking, then that may help. I think, actually. Someone who just recently muted just helped all of our echo issues. So. If you recently muted, please don't unmute unless you need to talk. [laughter] Jordyn: So there it is, Ross -- oh, maybe it's back. Ross: No, no, I'm here. Jordyn: Okay, well, no I said maybe the echo is back. But in any case, Ross, can you repeat your point? Ross: Yeah. It's not a point that I'm making, it's a question that I'm asking. I guess I'll ask it again. What I'm asking, within the context of the work that we've done thus far, the work that we've agreed on thus far, what sort of a compromise is this constituency looking for? Or is it simply to say that, 'we don't agree with the work thus far and we want to have our opinion on the record?' If it's the latter, that's fine, I just, I thought it might be -- Marilyn: Thank you– Ross: There's a lot of questioning around what your preference is in this specific question in the context of the work. Jordyn: Marilyn, you're actually breaking up quite a bit, and we didn't get any of that. Marilyn: I said, 'why don't we just note my comment and move forward on the work?' Jordyn: We'll make sure that's recorded in the minutes. But I also want to note that what we're trying to do here is define what an operational point of contact is. I think actually, Marilyn, that the objection is more relevant when we get to some later questions like whether or not it's a good idea to replace the existing admin and tech contacts with only an operational point of contact, because here all we're trying to do is figure out what it means when we're saying operational point of contact. Avri: This is Avri. If I could say, it sounds like we almost have a diligent account. The operational point of contact is for things operational. Jordyn: Ah. Avri: And it's hard to understand where the problem would be in such definitions. Speaker 1: Who was that, may I ask? Avri: This is Avri. Speaker 1: Okay, thanks. Jordyn: Yeah, I'll agree that the definition I drew up is probably not the most enlightening thing ever created -- Avri: I was saying it was useful. Jordyn: Well, well, you're right that it does say that an operational point of contact is for operational things. It doesn't really resolve what the issue of the full scope of what operational things might be. What we're trying to do is create sort of a minimum threshold here and indicate that -- I think, I actually think, although it sounds like others may disagree, I actually think it's -- I'm trying to draw out the fact that there's a minimum requirement and it may expand beyond that. It may seem like that's obvious to everyone that's been doing this work, but I don't think it would necessarily be obvious to anyone that's just seeing this work for the first time. Kathy: Jordyn, may I? Jordyn: Go ahead, Kathy. Kathy: I think that this definition tracks, especially the first two sentences, you know, very closely tracks the purpose of who is adopted by council. I'm still not crazy about the third sentence, but I'm going to agree with Steve that it captures the discussion of, our last discussion, and where the task force wanted to go. I think that this is pretty clear. Just wanted to throw my two cents in. Jordyn: Thanks. Any other thoughts on this? What I'm hearing is, it sounds like its useful at least to sort of use this as a working definition as we do the rest of our work on this in this area. There's nothing to stop us later on from revisiting it if we want to revise it a little bit. Ross: Jordyn, if I could jump in. Jordyn: Yeah, go ahead Ross. Ross: I think the definition is fine. I don't have any serious problems with it. The language in there -- you know, that third sentence, as Steve points out, is probably a little extraneous but from a document standpoint, from a report standpoint, it would probably be useful for us to have a framing statement somewhere in there that says 'these are the minimum requirements, any implementation beyond these minimum requirements as long as they are consistent with the minimum requirements are both welcomed and encouraged.' Jordyn: Yeah, that's what I'm trying to get at. I'm just trying to make sure that we capture that thought somewhere. Maybe that as we start to draw up the report, it doesn't belong necessarily in the definition itself, but in the framing comments... Ross: Yeah, exactly, just some big bold text somewhere that says, 'this is how you need to interpret this document.' Jordyn: Right. Okay. Why don't we move on a little bit, then, we'll use this at least as a basis for our on-going discussion. Ross: Moving on would imply progress, Jordyn. [laughs] Jordyn: Hey, we're trying to make a little bit of progress. Ross: Just wanted to be clear, then. Jordyn: So the other.. I lost my last set of questions. So the last time we had a proposal, we also started to discuss another set of questions and I think that began with, the first one was something I mentioned earlier, which was, do we think it's a good idea to replace the admin and the tech contact with this notion of an operational point of contact? Part of the reason why we couldn't really resolve that question last time was because we didn't really know what we meant by an operational point of contact was. So hopefully now we do, and I'd like to return to that question and ask for peoples' thoughts whether we think now that it's directionally correct to replace admin and tech contacts with an operational point of contact. Ross: Jordyn, if I could ask you a process question? Jordyn: Yeah, go ahead, Ross. Ross: I hope I don't distract the group into a thirty minute process discussion. But the question is, are you asking this question from a standpoint of policy or implementation? Jordyn: I am asking this question from the standpoint of policy. Because we would -- Essentially, what I'm really asking from the question of policy, is to.. should we undertake the route of saying that the admin and -- what we're really doing is saying the admin, the purpose of terms of reference of item number two which is supplying the purpose of the various contacts, what we're really doing is saying that the admin and tech contacts are no longer useful, they're deprecated. And instead we have this operational point of contact. That's what I'm actually saying we would do from a policy perspective. Ross: So the policy question is, are we specifying a new contact type to replace or a new contact type that will be added to. Jordyn: Sure, that's one way of looking at it. Are we comfortable deprecating the admin and tech contact from a policy perspective. Ross: All right, great. Steve: Shouldn't we also talk about the registered name holder? Because that is a current data element and one question is with that, is should that go away? Or is that still there? Jordyn: I think there's -- once again, assuming that we're the template of the ad hoc proposal, I think the notion of the registered name holder still exists. Am I right, Ross? Ross: Yeah, absolutely. The conversation that needs to happen as it relates to the registered name holder is what level of data disclosure is appropriate relative to that? Jordyn: Correct, but that's actually not part of terms of reference item number two. Ross: Correct, correct. Jordyn: You have to define what the purpose is. See, I think you're right, see, we do -- I think the third question I raised in the last call was how do we define the registered name holder? But I think notionally we all sort of all have an idea about what that means and that will mostly just be an exercise in crafting language to try and get an agreement -- Steve: Do we also have to assess whether that is consistent with or what the relationship of that data element is to the purpose of WHOIS? Jordyn: I think that is probably a good idea as well. I think we do need to do that, I'd just rather -- unless people feel strongly that it's a gating issue here, I'd rather wait until we've addressed these other issues, and deal with the registered name holder last. Steve: Okay. Thanks. Jordyn: Okay, so, once again back to I guess Ross's question. In asking the policy question, do we think it's a good idea to, from a policy perspective, to deprecate the admin and tech contacts and to add an operational point of contact. Marilyn: And, Jordyn, just to be clear, all the contacts are quote "still there", they're just not displayed. We'll still collect information, we're just not displaying it. Is that correct? Jordyn: I believe that is what the proposal says. Is that right, Ross? Ross: Ah, the proposal is silent on the issue of data collection. Jordyn: On the issue of data collection, right, but it doesn't change the -- right, so there's an existing requirement for -- or did we decide there wasn't? Was or wasn't a requirement to select the admin and tech contact, or is that purely as a result of the fact that they have to be displayed in WHOIS? Ross: There is a requirement in your contract -- not in your contract, actually, that equals the registrant -- there is a requirement in your contract to collect that data. Jordyn: Right, so that would persist after, regardless of whether or not we deprecated the purpose of it. Avri: I don't understand. Ross: So presumably -- Jordyn: It's -- Ross: It's a policy question that would be out of the scope for this group. But it could be changed through policy, right? Jordyn: Right. Jordyn: So I've got Avri and then Kathy, anyone else? Steve, David. Hey, Avri, you're up. Avri: Okay, I was going to start out sort of saying that if we have the notion of operational decline, I would think that admin and technical were suffused in that notion of operational point of contact, and then I got confused by the 'if we have to collect and display a technical and an administrative in anyway and those two could not be replaced by a single operational, ' then I don't understand -- I certainly don't think we should create a third new one. I don't understand deprecating things and still collecting them, so I guess I must say I got to the point of being confused. Jordyn: Yeah, I think it's purely a sort of half horse scope, Avri. It's within our scope to look at defining these things and figuring out what should be displayed, but it's not within our terms of reference to figure out what should be collected. So I guess as Ross points out, there could be followup policy work to make that sort of sensible indefinitely. Avri: So we could say, 'No, operational covers admin and technical and that's that.' Obviously there's an implication for collection, but we wouldn't [garbled]. Jordyn: Correct, correct. We might even add -- theoretically we could in our report we could say, 'there's some additional policy work that might make sense here, but it wasn't within our terms of reference, ' so we refer back to the council. But we could certainly, this task force is certainly capable of deciding whether or not there should be this sort of notion of an operational point of contact, announcing that the admin and tech contacts no longer make sense anymore, no longer have any meaning, and also altering what's displayed. Kathy? Kathy: But isn't there a preliminary step here that we're not taking? A basic, simple question which is -- before, because -- I finally after long thought and great argument accepted the fact we are not running a data collection. I always thought we were, I'm now beginning to understand that this database is used for many purposes, and many types of data, and we are looking at the WHOIS service, and what is published on that. And so it seems to me that we are not talking about what contacts are collected or not. The question I think we should be asking, what contact is consistent with the purpose of WHOIS that's been adopted by council, do we have a comprehensive definition of that contact, does that contact meet the purpose, and if the answer is yes, I think we move on. Jordyn: Yeah, I think that's a very useful way of looking at it. Steve? Steve: Yeah, I just have two points. One, I think Avri referenced it. This will have implications for collection and accepting that that's out of scope, I think it's important to understand that this means the information will continue to be collected, and presumably the registrar could do whatever they want with it, as long as they disclose the use to, and obtain the consent, as they're required to do today, from the registrant to that use. So they could use it for marketing purposes, they could sell it to the highest bidder, they could do whatever they want with it. Ross: Disclose it to law enforcement interests. Steve: That's the implication of selection, because if it's out of WHOIS, WHOIS tells you, well, you have to make it available in a certain way. But since it's out of WHOIS it's really just data that they collect, and in the absence of any other -- you know, if there are other provisions of the contract that apply, then those apply. Jordyn: Yeah. Ross: Jordyn, if I may? Jordyn: Yeah, let me make just a brief comment, Ross, I'll turn it over to you -- Ross: Okay. Steve: And then I'll come back to my second. Jordyn: Okay, sorry. I just want to comment, that's definitely true, and sort of the notion of billing contact information is probably something that already falls into that category -- something that registrars collect but aren't displaying. Go ahead, Ross. Ross: Yeah, I just, actually I couldn't disagree with the comment that Steve made more. It's based on a fallacy that data goes into WHOIS. We've gone through this a bunch of times, and Kathy has quite rightly illustrated how WHOIS actually worked. Data is collected, data is stored, data is published via WHOIS. Claiming that because data is IN the WHOIS quote unquote in Steve's terms somehow changes the nature of that data and somehow changes the control or lack of control a company has over its customer data is completely a falsehood. So I would encourage the group to really, really think through exactly what WHOIS is, and the words they use to describe it, because the view that WHOIS is, as Steve describes it, a receptacle for data is completely factually inaccurate. Steve: Okay, thank you Ross, I don't think I said that. But I appreciate your comment. My other point was looking at whether we can get rid of admin and technical data. Let me ask first just about technical contact. It's always struck me that one of the things that we can usefully do in defining the purposes of the different contacts is hopefully standardize the definition so that it kind of means the same thing to everybody, including what's communicated to registrants. So my question would be, do we think that the operational point of contact as we have this working definition of it, how do we think that lines up with technical contact as it exists today? Because it strikes me they may be the same thing. Or they may be something different -- but I would be interested -- I know at an earlier phase, we asked all of the constituencies to give their view of the purpose of the technical contact, among other things. But I don't have that in front of me now, but I wonder to what extent that overlaps with the operational point of contact, as we have reached a working definition of that. Jordyn: Thanks Steve. David? David: Actually, I was still confused regarding the collection issue, but it's been clarified. Jordyn: Okay, thanks. I just want to briefly address Steve's last point. I think that there's probably some -- my guess would be there would be some overlap between sort of the traditional role of a technical contact and the operational contact, I don't think it's necessarily -- I don't read it as being a 1:1, especially because I don't know what a technical contact was supposed to do before. I'm not sure that it's a 1:1 correlation, I think that if you were drawing a Venn diagram, some things that are covered by the operational point of contact that aren't by the tech, and at least what some people think that the tech contacts are supposed to be doing in terms of, as Marilyn puts it, network attacks, and so on, that might not necessarily be included in the operational point of contact. Any other thoughts or perspectives on that question from Steve? Jordyn: No. Kathy: Yeah, Kathy. Jordyn: Yeah, go ahead, Kathy. Kathy: I have to agree, I never quite understood what the technical contact was supposed to do. So I think this is a lot clearer and lays it out, and again it's consistent with the purpose adopted by council. So I think it gives us a starting point for working on a clear definition, probably a little broader than technical contact, I would think. And I think the third sentence if we choose to include it, the third sentence of your formulation today, Jordyn, lays out that this person could very well be the person to resolve or reliably pass on data to someone who could resolve the administrative types of problems that were laid down in administrative contacts, so I'm not sure this equates completely just to a technical contact. I think it's broader and clearer than our original technical contact and probably also would include elements of the administrative contact, and also probably, depending on who it would include elements of administrative contact. Jordyn: Yeah, I'm sort of inclined to agree with that, which is why I was I making the point, they don't exactly overlap, I think there is some stuff that people might, used to thought to belonged to admin contact but probably would have been swept up by the operational contact. So let me ask this, I think Kathy posed a useful question earlier, which is, do we think that.. does anyone, lets not phrase this negative, are we confidant that we, essentially moving on with a deprecated admin and tech contact and an operational point of contact, is that consistent with the purpose of WHOIS that we have from the council, and if so, then it seems that to a large extent that probably what we need to be doing in the task force. I wonder to people have any perspective on that, it sounds like some people - Kathy might have expressed this requirement. Does anyone think that moving ahead this way might not meet the purpose of WHOIS as defined by council? Steve: Jordyn, this is Steve, can I repeat the question I think Avri asked, what is meant by deprecating, does that mean this would no longer appear in WHOIS, or does it mean something like - I mean deprecating to me means... doesn't mean removing, but maybe somebody could explain what is meant by depredating. Jordyn: Yeah, sure, so we're not yet to the question to what gets displayed in WHOIS, so here we would be answering the question of what the purpose of these things are, and essentially we would say the admin and technical contact no longer have any purpose. Steve: They no longer have any purpose, is that what you said? Jordyn: That's correct. And other people can propose other language, but that's what I proposed in the first draft. Marilyn: Jordyn, its Marilyn. Can I... no longer have any purpose, and yet I think we've been talking about the fact we're not talking about selection we're talking about display, so... Jordyn: We'll specifically [interference] we're doing neither here, we're talking about what purpose of the contacts are, if you look at our terms of reference, item number two, which we're trying to concentrate on right now, we've been asked to define the purpose of each of the contacts. Paul: Jordyn, its Paul [garbled] can I get you to? Jordyn: Go ahead, Paul. Paul: I think of it as real similar, in my mind to the billing contact. Way back in time, a little history, the billing contact was displayed in the WHOIS output, back when NSI was the sole registrar, and everybody still collects the billing contact, we have to know who to bill, but we don't put it in the WHOIS output anymore. I think of that same thing happening now with the admin and technical contacts. We won't display those any longer in the WHOIS output - we'll still collect them, just like we collect the billing contacts. What we will display in my mind, is the type of contact called.. the echo is back [echoing]. Jordyn: Right, and the OPAC it would indicate what the.. we [bell rings] purpose of the task force registrars would communicate that to the registrant at the time of registration, so that we could reliably bill [mumbles, echo] Man2: The echo is really bad again, could everyone not speaking mute? [beeps] Jordyn: That seems to be better again, thank you. So, Steve, does that start to answer your question are you closer to understanding that? Steve: Well, I would not agree with the statement that the administrative and technical contact no longer have any purpose [bells ring], and I'm not sure why we're talking this halfway step. If what people are proposing is what Paul's proposing, which is administrative and technical contact would no longer be displayed under this proposal, then let's say that. Jordyn: So let's be clear. I think that when we get to... if we decide as part of terms of reference item number two that things don't have a purpose any more, I would be very surprised if the task force then decided as [beep] terms of reference item number three that it made sense to display them. Steve: Well, I disagree that they don't have a purpose anymore, so whatever [mumbles] Avri: Can I have a question? Marilyn: And I'd like to be in the queue again. Jordyn: So Avri, Marilyn anybody else? ok go ahead Avri Avri: When we say it doesn't have a purpose, do we mean the whole phrase doesn't have a purpose within the context of the WHOIS. Jordyn: Yes, that's correct. Avri: So all the other purposes in the world don't matter, its only that no purpose within the context of WHOIS. Jordyn: Correct, they may be good, for example, for helping registrars use up disk space on their database. Avri: So no purpose within the context of WHOIS so we don't have the confusion of, well but I think its useful. Jordyn: Yeah, that's fine. That's a good clarification. Ross: Jordyn, I got bumped off the call, but I just wanted to add something to what Paul had said earlier. Jordyn: I'm going to put you right after Marilyn. Marilyn? Marilyn: I would prefer, since we are talking about display that we use language that specifically references no longer be displayed, because I don't actually think, even in the context of the definition that the council approved, we need to keep in mind that we are not talking about the purpose of WHOIS for the purpose of collecting the data, we're talking about whether or not its going to be displayed. Jordyn: So I think what... let me get Ross's comment first, then I'll figure out how to digest it. Ross: I just, this is related to Paul's comment, I think its extremely important for everyone to realize that when we're talking about the data that's being collected versus the data that's being published. The data that's being collected will remain available to those parties that have access to it today. There's nothing in this proposal that talks about changing that method of access, nothing in this proposal that talks about decreasing the amount of disclosure to law enforcement interest or to consumer protection interests - there's a tremendous amount of fear and uncertainty and doubt that's being spread by certain constituencies or certain stakeholders as it relates to the needs of those groups and the effect of this proposal on the requirements of the communities that are just patently false, and its think its very critical that we keep that in mind. Jordyn: So for us then, I'm trying to understand if you mean one of two things.. Ross: Specifically what I'm saying is when the FBI calls me tomorrow after we implement a proposal like this, that they will still get the same level of access to my customer data that they have today. My relationship with that organization does not change as a result of this proposal. Jordyn: Your saying non-WHOIS... access to data that does not use WHOIS will not be changed. Ross: That's correct. Jordyn: ya, go ahead. Kathy: which means I think that we're converging towards what Marilyn has said, that the statement technical and administrative contacts will no longer be displayed, let me just add the words 'in the WHOIS service', seem to reflect to me where we're going with this discussion. Jordyn: It seems like several people suggest that we may want to at least look ahead to the work in terms of item number three as we're doing this, so I think its not unreasonably to do so, so we're not acting... the isolation of the end result... I think its fine to... so essentially what we're saying is we can work on language but the admin and technical contacts... we have got to have two elements, we can't just say they will no longer be displayed, because that doesn't actually meet the requirements in terms of reference number two, which is what are they for. We can't say what their not for, we have to say what they are for, it can be that we can say their not for anything any more, but perhaps we can say they no longer have a purpose... the admin and tech contacts no longer have a purpose within the context of WHOIS, and as a result should no longer be displayed. Man: I think that's fair Jordyn. Jordyn: Any other thoughts on that? Woman: Can you say repeat that again? Jordyn: The admin and technical contacts no longer have a purpose within the context of WHOIS and as a result should no longer be displayed therein. Women: Within the context of the WHOIS service? Jordyn: Should no longer be displayed by the WHOIS service, correct. So we're doing a little bit of terms of reference number two and three here. Marilyn: Jordyn, its Marilyn. Jordyn: Yeah, go ahead: Marilyn: If that's the way you want to word it, at some point then I suppose when we go through discussing this, or... then we would expect to document the views of each constituency on these points one by. [two people talking at once] Jordyn: This is, I agree, Marilyn, the point at which I'd expect your constituency objection to be most relevant: Marilyn: And we don't agree with this language. But other than saying that, we believe that the administrative and technical contact remains relevant, and should continue to be displayed. I understand that we may be in the minority. Tony: The ISPs believe the same thing by the thing by the way. Man 2: So this data would be published in addition the operational point of contact? Woman: Yes, unless the definition of the operational point of contact is redefined to say that they specific responsibility for fulfilling the function of the administrative contact and technical contact, and that agreed to in registrar and registrant service agreement. Man: And how would you define administrative and technical contact. Woman: I would say that the administrative contact is responsible... I'm happy with definition today, Ross. Man: What is that definition? Woman: Ross, I'm not going to go back and read the definition, but I recall that Bruce posted definitions to task force sometime earlier. The general purpose that we're looking for technical contact is someone who can deal with an operational person in most large businesses, at least, deals with operation but not necessarily technical issue. Now an operational person could be given that responsibility, which is why I said it comes down to what the agreed assignment is, and what is defined in the... if the registrars want to have a terms of service that went into that detail, that would be another alternative, but I doubt that registrars want to do that. Ross: So the definitions you referred to are actually... I wrote for [echo]. What I'm having a hard times understanding as it relates to your position is how the definition of operational point of contact that Jordyn describes is inconsistant with the definitions that I wrote five years ago. Woman: The operational.... we haven't yet determined that Ross, and I know this isn't personal, but we're trying to reach understanding.. Man: That's why I'm asking a question. Woman: I understand, and I appreciate that. Because I think if we, ask a task force, can examine a definition of operational that is satisfactory to the broadest part of the community as possible, that can really advance the work. [two people talking at once] Man: I understand that. What I'm asking is what the inconsistency is in your, mind, we can talk about that. Jordyn: Can I actually step in and refresh our memory of what the old definitions are by looking at them for a second, and maybe that.. Tony: Yeah, that would be great Jordyn, please do that, then Ross will know what its about. Ross: I wrote those... Tony: You don't need to ask the question. If you wrote them why are you asking the question. Ross: I'm asking the question Tony, because I don't understand your position. The reason.. [mumbles] Woman: Jordyn, can you go ahead.. Jordyn: Yeah, let me read them back and we'll see whether or not there are areas that are covered by the existing definition that don't seem to be met by the operational contact. So 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 contacts about the domain name's registration and the domain holder. In all cases, the administrative contact viewed as the authoritative point of contact for the domain name, second only to the domain holder. And the definition of technical contact is, 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 servers for the domain. The technical contact should be able to answer technical questions about the domain name, the delegated zone, and work with technically orientated people in other zone to resolve technical problems that effect the domain name and or zone. I guess Marilyn or Tony are elements of those definitions that you don't think are captured by the current... Tony: I'm happy with those, I wouldn't change them. Jordyn: that's not the question... Marilyn: Jordyn, Jordyn, I think that is the question, that I'm not comfortable.. that those elements are kept in the definition of operational contact. Jordyn: I guess what I'm trying to ask, is what are.. maybe there's a way we can massage that definition of operational point of contact.. Ross: Jordyn, I'll ask the question again. Making a contention doesn't make it so. What is the inconsistency that we're so troubled with. If Tony and Marilyn don't want to get specific, then why are we wasting our time addressing a question that hasn't been asked. Marilyn: I'm happy to be specific. I want an understanding, which I don't have right now, that the administrative contact definition and the technically contact definition are assumed as they presently exist under the term OPAC... definition of operational contact. And I haven't been able to understand that. It may be because I'm not smart enough. But its certainly isn't because I'm not trying. Avri: Can I ask a question? This is Avri. Steve: This is Steve, Can I get in the queue too? Jordyn: So Steve, Kathy... ok go ahead, Avri. Avri: Ok, when we're trying to look at the definitions here, the operational and the technical, we have two ways of going about it. The one that we seem to be doing now, which is very difficult, which is showing that A is equal to B plus C. And the other one, which I think I hear Ross asking, but I don't hear an answer, which is what is missing from the operational definition that you believe needs to be covered that isn't in there. And so a specific statement of, this particular function that wasn't a previous definition, is not, or rather is, missing from the operational. And so I guess people talk about not understanding, I don't understand what the two constituencies feel is missing from the definition of operational within the context of the definitions that have been declined so far. And so we keep in this loggerhead of I want you give me an all inclusive explanation, but I don't.. and I want you to give me the exception, and we seem to be talking at cross purposes. Jordyn: Thanks, Avri, that's helpful. Steve? Steve: Yeah, what you read from.. Jordyn, I guess, was the exhibit to the transfers task report which we were asked to used as a starting point. Jordyn: That's right. Steve: For defining the purpose. But what I recall is when my constituency put its statement in, several months ago, on this point, we said we don't think that the definition in there is the right starting point, or we don't think accurately captures what we think the purpose of the administrative contact, in particular, was. So I'm not sure what... what... I'm not sure why we're measuring this operational point of contact against a definition that was created in another context and never adopted by this task force, and there's not a consensus that that's the actual definition of the purpose of the administrative contact anyway Jordyn: Well, I guess I was reading them Steve because there was an argument being advanced that the operational point of contact doesn't seem to capture the definition of the admin or technical point contact. Steve: That can read exhibit of the transfers task force? Jordyn: Well. Man: [other talking].. submit to the fact that the terms of reference are very clear that those are the definitions that we are supposed to start with. Jordyn: Yeah, that's fine. Steve: But we've never reached an agreement that those definition reflect current reality, and in fact, I think we made point in our submission, there's probably not remain registrar in a million whose even aware of those definitions, so in practice those don't really correspond to what people do. All I'm saying is whether.. and I'm disagree with.. Man: So your disagreeing with Marilyn that relevant? Steve: I am. I'm disagreeing with Marilyn and Tony to the extent that I don't think the issue is whether the operational point of contact lines up with these definitions, because these definitions don't have any standing in this process except as a starting point. And we've never agreed that their also the ending point. Jordyn: So I think your right Steve that these are a reference point for us, but they certain don't have.. we're not bound to do anything with them, other than take them as a starting point. Steve: And we've never accepted them as anything other than the starting point that council gave us. Jordyn: That's true as well. I guess my point was that to the extent that people are saying the operational contact doesn't subsume what's already covered by admin and tech contacts. I think we need to try to figure out what their missing, and so its useful to at least look back on these things. If there's other things that you want to suggest that the operational contact doesn't capture that you think really belongs in the definition which wasn't even in the old definition I'm sure we're glad to hear that as well. Steve: Well, we... I've got to go back to what our submission on this was several months ago... I don't think that the operational point of contact as it stands here, encompasses... let me say this... if the operational point of contact is meant to substitute for administrative and technical contact... and I think we need to bring in here the issue of registered name holder, I don't think that it does that, and I would disagree with the statement that you read, Jordyn, I mean.. on behalf of my constituency, I would say that our constituency would agree that the admin and technical contacts no longer have a purpose within the context of WHOIS and would no longer be displayed in the WHOIS service. I just wanted that on the record. Jordyn: So, Steve can I actually ask.. and I want to get through the rest of the cue, which is.. but can I actually ask if there are alternative definitions, actually you don't agree that the admin and technical contact have no purpose within the context of WHOIS... so what do you think their purpose is then? Steve: Well, we... I'll go back to what we submitted on this, which was several months ago, but... I don't disagree that, I'm not trying to hold up... progress on this, I think that what you have read does accurately reflect the tenor of the discussion of those who were supporting the OPOC proposal. Jordyn: Right, but that's slightly... I mean, maybe... if you get a chance, and you can go back and look at what IPC submission was before and just let us... like... if you think... at some point, even if we advance this work, and decide that, yeah, we want to replace these contacts, the admin and technical contacts, presumably if the IPC doesn't agree that's the right course, we're ask that you provide some alternatives.. your going to say, no we say the purpose of admin and tech contacts is X, not [mumbles]... so, if that's the case, I think it would be useful to know, at least for the purpose of discussion, what you think the admin and tech contacts actually are, and maybe... Steve: Well, we think the purpose of identifying the administrative contact in the WHOIS database is... or two purposes, one is to give registrars a clearly identified authorized voice of the registered of name holder, for purposes of managing the domain name, which I think is somewhat close to the definition in exhibit C of transfers task force report. And two, to give other members of the public a clearly identified point of contact for issue involving the content of the corresponding website or other internet resource. I would actually say regarding the registration use of the domain name. Jordyn: So you're saying... it sounds like... Steve: That's our position on what the purpose of the administrative contact. I'm just reading that from what we submitted and which in the preliminary task force report. Jordyn: Correct, so do you think that both of those elements are missing from the operation point of contact or. Steve: Yes. Jordyn: OK. Steve: At least they're missing in part, because, number 1, registrars might need to deal with the registered name holder on other issues besides the issues related to configuration of the records association with the domain name within a DNS name server. So in part it's missing there. Ross: I'll worry about the registrar Steve, its OK. Steve: What's that? Ross: I'll worry about the registrar;s interest, don't worry about that. Steve: And the second point is totally missing. Jordyn: So I think actually the first one we could probably address in a fairly straightforward manner, but the second one, I think your probably right, is missing. So your objection would be that you think that there needs to be a contact who is responsible for issue relating to content that. Steve: Registration and use of the domain name. But... so I'll just leave it there. Jordyn: OK. Man: Whoever just put us on mute, thanks, because it just got rid of the echo. But I'm curious, I just have a question. Jordyn: But I think I have Kathy first. Kathy: [cuts out]... goes back to our terms of reference, and that we need to be asking the questions that you're asking, Jordyn, in the context of terms of reference too, which is defining the purpose of the contacts in the context of the purpose of WHOIS. So I think we have to ask the continuing question of anyone whose expanded... I mean, even Steve just said that the OPAC definition that we've just created, the operational point of contact, accurately represents the tenor of the discussion, it fits with the purpose of WHOIS adopted by council, and it, to me its a moving forward point, it answers, it complete address terms... it almost... we do have to talk about the domain name registrant. But it addresses the terms of reference to, we have a contact, in the context of the purpose of WHOIS that we've decided. And so, I don't want to say the administrative and technical contacts no longer have a purpose, they may have many purposes, but we're just talking about what's going to be displayed. So I think we have to keep asking the questions, what's consistent with the purpose of who is. Jordyn: Ok, do you think they have purpose of WHOIS, or do you think they might have other useful purposes unrelated to WHOIS? Kathy: It has now been drilled into be that we are not asking the question 'what data are we collecting', we're asking 'what data are we publishing?'. So I don't want to say anything about the purpose, I'm not sure we have to say anything about the purpose of these contacts, I think we just need to move forward, with it. Jordyn: My reading of our terms of reference, that we do have to... we're clearly asked to talk about what the purpose of these contacts is. Arguably, we're not required to talk about what the terms of the OPAC is... didn't exist at the time.. but we are required [others talk] so these other things are... within the context of WHOIS, let me be clear about that. So it could be, I think the statement.. Woman: Just wondering if I could add to the two. Jordyn: So I think the statement that I made before, that, that the purpose... that they don't have a purpose within the context of WHOIS, limits what we're saying, but I don't think we can get away with just saying 'here's a new OPAC and we're not going to talk about the other'. That would be sort of ignoring what we've been asked to do in the terms of reference work. ] Woman: I'm going to keep listening. Jordyn: Yeah, fine. Man: I had a question but I think I'll just skip it for now. Jordyn: Ok, then, Wendy. Wendy: Given the tenor of the discussion, alright, thanks... it's the way you've phrased it ,Jordyn, these contacts no longer have a purpose in the context of WHOIS, as has been given by the council, makes sense, the OPOC substitutes for the contacts that aren't necessary to be displayed in the WHOIS, to serve the purpose of WHOIS that council has given to us. And so not saying anything about whether registrars will still be able to contact the authoritative person for the domain name because that's not the purpose of WHOIS, not saying anything about whether somebody trying to find the person responsible for content of a website will still have a place to go, because that's not the purpose of WHOIS. But in the limited purpose of WHOIS, of giving people a... I don't have the definition that was given in front of me, but within that limit purpose OPOC serves all of the ends that WHOIS is required to serve, and so the others no longer are necessary outside of that. Jordyn: Thanks Wendy. OK, I'm going to make a suggestion for moving on, which is, I'll write up, I'll try to capture some of our conversation today, understanding that the IPC, the ISPs and the BCs have some reservations here, it sounds like they might be slightly different reservations, but... so I'd like to ask two things... I'll write up the notes of what've heard today, but I think it would be very helpful, if the BC and the ISPs in particular, if you think that there are functions within these existing definitions or some other definitions of admin and technical contacts that are not being met by the operational point of contact. It would be very helpful for everyone on the task force to get a better understanding of what might be missing from the operational point of contact. [end of transcription] Registered Name Holder discussion: Jordyn Buchanan referred to the definition from the Transfer task force: (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): "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." Ross: Person who signs the contract for the registration of the name, which includes the registry, is the Registered Name Holder and whose name should be appear in the WHOIS. The WHIS records should not create any interests in that name. Wendy: The market should decide. Would deprecate to register the name holder too and in fact the only name that needs to be is the person who is legally and effectively capable of maintaining the domain name records associated with the domain name. Avri: Agrees with notion that the field should be deprecated and is consistent with the purpose as accepted by the Council. Kathy: suggests changing the name to ‘Domain Name Registrants’ Discuss Marrakech arrangements: The Whois task force will meet in Marrakech during the ICANN meetings Sunday 25 June 9:00 to 12:00 Monday 26 June 7:30 Breakfast meeting Monday 26 June 10:30 to 12:30 GAC /Whois joint meeting. Next Task Force Meeting : June 25, 2006 in Marrakech, GNSO Work Room (Karam) at 9:00 local time -- Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat - ICANN gnso.secretariat[at]gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org |