[gnso-dow123] Preliminary summary of Whois Task Force call, 26 August 2006

["Maria Farrell" <maria.farrell@xxxxxxxxx>]

Dear all,
 
Please find below the preliminary summary of this week's Whois Task Force
conference call. The minutes will follow in due course with a complete list
of call participants - in the meantime, apologies to anyone on the call who
did not speak and whose name I have missed. 
 
Mike Zupke, the Registrar Liaison Manager, has agreed to participate in our
next task force call on September 18th. He will give us more information
about registrar Whois, and about the WDPRS. I have collected from my notes
of this week's call the questions task force members wish to put to him. If
you have any more questions, please send them to the task force list. 
 
Best regards, Maria
 


WHOIS Task Force conference call

 26 August  2006

 

Preliminary summary

 


Participants

Jordyn Buchanan (Task Force Chair, Reg'r) 

Marilyn Cade (BC)

Ross Rader (Reg'r) 

Steve Metalitz (IPC) 

David Maher (Reg'y) 

Wendy Seltzer (ALAC)  

Avri Doria (NomCom) 

Glen de Saint Gery - GNSO Secretariat

Maria Farrell - GNSO Policy Officer

 

Reg'r  - Registrars Constituency

Reg'y - gTLD Registries Constituency

BC - Business & Commercial Users Constituency

NCUC - Non-Commercial Users Constituency)

IPC - Intellectual Property  Interests Constituency 

ISPCP - Internet Service Providers & Connectivity Providers Constituency

ALAC - At Large Advisory Committee  

NomCom - Nominating Committee Appointee 

 

1                                      Discussion of whether or not registry
Whois is used as a backup to registrar Whois
MF reported that an authoritative list of the Whois servers of ICANN
accredited registrars is not currently maintained by ICANN. MF also reported
that of the 50,000 complaints received through the WDPRS system in 2005,
there are not reliable figures for how many complaints referred to wholly or
partially missing data. The task force asked for more information and
requested that the Registrar Liaison participate in the next call. 

Actions

*       MF to request Registrar Liaison participation in Whois TF call on 18
September.

 


2          What effect, if any, does the OPOC proposal have on proxy
services? 
The TF discussed the relationship between the OPoC proposal and existing
proxy services. It did not appear that the OPoC model would have an effect
on the current proxy-registrant relationship. The discussion focused on the
difference between an OPoC and a proxy registrant and whether there would be
more layers of communication with registrants under the OPoC proposal than
with proxy services. 

 

Actions

*       Steve Metalitz may provide a proposal to the TF mailing list that
addresses the issues raised by a distinction between proxy registration
(i.e. a licensing arrangement between the registrant and the proxy) and the
OPoC. 

 

3          How do we notify people of the changes to Whois, including the
definition of various roles?
The TF briefly discussed the policy recommendation on notice of Whois that
was forwarded to the GNSO Council. The TF then discussed the methods and
challenges of creating awareness of changes to Whois. The TF considered how
changes can best be communicated by registrars (given the challenges of
communication via email, the control panel of the registrar's website, and
other methods), and also how ICANN can contribute (e.g. a user manual).
Registrars already communicate information to registrants during the
registration and renewal processes and have significant experience with
this. As a link during the registration process to an external website (e.g.
an ICANN information page) presents a challenge, the task force can prepare
text that could be used to inform registrants. Another approach may be to
prepare a set of minimum requirements that registrar notification should
meet. 

 

Actions

*       Avri and Jordyn to work on a text offline that registrars could use
to inform registrants about changes in Whois. (Avri will also communicate
with Ross.)
*       The TF will further discuss the text and the approach to informing
registrants. 

 

 

4          How is data that is no longer published in Whois made available?
(e.g. to law enforcement)

Jordyn noted that this issue is a requirement in the TF's terms of
reference. The OPoC proposal does not explicitly deal with this issue. The
TF discussed whether the number of requests for Whois information would
increase under the OPoC model. The TF also discussed the view that
individual registrants may provide more accurate data if the data is not
published, and whether creating a distinction between commercial and
non-commercial registrants is feasible. 

 

Jordyn summarised the discussion, saying a distinction between private and
business registrants would be difficult to implement. He invited TF members
with concerns that the OPoC proposal does not meet business needs to provide
information about those concerns. Jordyn also invited suggestions for ways
to make available data that is no longer published (the current proposal
envisages contact with the registrar as the way to access this data).  

 

Next call

The next Whois TF call will be held on Monday, 18 September at the same
time. It will discuss:

*       Suggested changes to the OPoC proposal following the discussion on
the 26 August call. 
*       Suggested changes to the OPoC following the discussion on the
consequences of removing data from Whois. 

 

In order to make progress on the next call, substantive proposals regarding
these issues are needed for development on-list.