RE: [gnso-dow123] RE: Comments on the Revised Preliminary Task Force Report on Whois Services

["Marilyn Cade" <marilynscade@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Thanks, Jordyn, perhaps a path forward would be to have the related Council
resolutions all included in an appendix, so that the readers will have easy
access to the relevant source documents about what guidance of the council
is applicable, and supports the ToR. 

 

The sentence you propose on page 5 should be repeated on page 10 for
constituency and transparency. 

 

On page 5, I recommend that there needs to be a sentence inserted which
describes what happens to the TF Final Report once presented to the GNSO
Council, and that should reference the relevant Council resolution that
directs how the Council will take further consultation. Etc. 

 

On page 17, I see that my comment about the BC's objection for removing the
address of the registered name holder was not accepted. But I fully accept
that is it reflected on page 18. I apologize for missing that earlier and
fully accept that as satisfactory and factual.

 

I am still not clear how the vote will be taken and what the process will
be, however. 

 

But will see TF colleagues on the call at 5:30 p.m my time here in Turkey.

 

  _____  

From: Marilyn Cade [mailto:marilynscade@xxxxxxxxxxx] 
Sent: Friday, November 17, 2006 12:08 PM
To: 'Maria Farrell'; 'gnso-dow123@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx'; 'Jordyn A. Buchanan'
Cc: 'Denise Michel'; 'Dan Halloran'; 'Bruce Tonkin'
Subject: RE: [gnso-dow123] RE: Comments on the Revised Preliminary Task
Force Report on Whois Services

 

Thanks, Maria.

 

I am attaching the marked up copy/sorry, didn't realize I sent my email
earlier without attachment!!! Apologies to all. Thanks for calling it to my
attention, Maria.  

 

I agree that there should be a standard use of capitals, but I think you
will find that the common approach is to consistency capitalize a shorter
term, when it substitutes for the full name of something. 

 

Also, the report should reference the Final Report of the initial TF, not
the draft version, see page 7 of the present draft for the relevant
reference to the draft version. You can find in the ICANN archive/I tried to
send it to you but got a rejection. Let me know if you need me to try again.
it was pretty easy to find. 

 

A couple of thoughts for Jordyn and you regarding policy staff perspective
on whether to explain the situation about the definition of 'purpose' being
used. The factual situation is that there is a decision by Council to have
the TF complete its work with a working definition, but the Council Chair
made it clear in the minutes that this is not a definition that is agreed to
beyond that purpose.  [see minutes I forwarded to  you separately]. 

 

See the resolutions pasted below. I have included them in the edited
version. The relevant Council resolutions that provide information about the
directions/ oversight of the Council to the TF, based on the TF request for
more guidance from the Council should be provided in sufficient detail,
using language from the Council minutes, or resolutions,  so that the facts
are neutrally laid out; the resolutions and the comments of the Council
Chair, documented in minutes that are approved by the Council help to do
that. 

 

The resolutions are pasted below for ease of reference.  

 

--------------------------------------------------------Begin pasted section
from ICANN GNSO web site - Resolutions
---------------------------------------20060720-02

"The GNSO Council notes that the WHOIS definition approved by the GNSO
Council on 18 April 06, as a working definition to allow the WHOIS task
force to proceed with its work, is related to the service that provides
public access to some of the data collected by registrars. It is not a
definition of the purpose of the data collected by the registrars in the
course of registering a domain name for their customers. 

In response to the extensive community and Government input on the
definition of the purpose of WHOIS, the GNSO Council agrees to undertake the
following steps: 

(1) Any Council member who voted in favor of the definition may provide a
brief explanation of the reason for supporting the resolution and their
understanding of its meaning. An Advisory Committee that supports the
current definition may also make a statement for the record through the
appropriate liaison to the GNSO Council. 

(2) The ICANN staff will provide a summary of the other interpretations of
the definition that have been expressed during the public comment period,
and subsequently in correspondence from the public and Governments. 

(3) The GNSO Council requests that the WHOIS task force continue with their
work as specified in the terms of reference taking into account the recent
input that has been provided. 

(4) The GNSO Council will take the Final Report (as specified in clause 9(c)
of the GNSO PDP process) from the WHOIS task force after the task force
finishes its work on all the terms of reference, engage in further dialogue
with the Advisory Committees (including the GAC, SSAC and ALAC), and
consider improving the wording of the WHOIS service definition so that it is
broadly understandable. 

Note that the WHOIS Task force will produce a Task Force Report (as
specified in clause 7(e) of the GNSO PDP process) later in 2006 that
addresses all terms of reference. This report will be subject to a further
public comment process, and the output of this public comment will be
incorporated into the Final Report. 

Note that the previous clause (3) in the motion posted on 13 July 2006 that
related to the purposes for collecting data is now the subject of a separate
motion. 

20060720-03

"The GNSO Council notes that, consistent with generally accepted privacy
principles, Registrars are required under clause 3.7.7.4 of the Registrar
Accreditation Agreement to provide notice to each new or renewed Registered
Name Holder stating: 

(i) The purposes for which any Personal Data collected from the applicant
are intended; 

(ii) The intended recipients or categories of recipients of the data
(including the Registry Operator and others who will receive the data from
Registry Operator); 

(iii) Which data are obligatory and which data, if any, are voluntary; and 

(iv) How the Registered Name Holder or data subject can access and, if
necessary, rectify the data held about them. 

To further understand the range of purposes for which data is intended, the
GNSO proposes the following steps: 

(1) The ICANN staff will review a representative sample of registrar
agreements with Registered Name Holders, taking into account the issues of
geographical diversity and rule of law variances, to identify some of the
purposes for which registrars collect Personal Data in the course of
registering a domain name for their customers. 

(2) The ICANN staff will review a representative sample of cctld registry or
cctld registrar agreements with registrants, taking into account the issues
of geographical diversity and rule of law variances, to identify some of the
purposes for which these organizations collect Personal Data from
registrants. 

(3) The ICANN staff will summarise the current material that has resulted
from WHOIS discussions since 2002 that document the current uses and abuses
of the Personal Data that is currently made public through the WHOIS
service. 

(4) Supported by the material produced in steps (1), (2) and (3) above, the
Council will undertake a dialogue with the ICANN Advisory Committee's, such
as the GAC, SSAC and ALAC, regarding the purposes for collecting Personal
Data, and discuss whether any policy development is required in this area
consistent with ICANN's mission and core values. 

The dialogue should seek to examine and understand consumer protection,
privacy/data protection and law enforcement perspectives."

 

-----------------------------------------------------------------end insert
from ICANN GNSO Web
Site--------------------------------------------------------------------

These Council resolutions makes it clear that following the Final Report,
there will then be further work by the Council and consultation - see above
re consultation. This is a critical point and needs to be carefully and
accurately stated in the Preliminary Report, and then, of course, carried
into the Final Report. 

I was surprised that the report didn't already include them, or a link to
them, but perhaps I missed that, while reading the report quickly and
online, here at the ITU Plenipot . I will note that it is hard for 'readers'
to flip around and undertake 'detective work' to find relevant documents
that are not linked, so I do appreciate the thoroughness of the ICANN policy
staff in gathering and organizing the relevant links. 

 

In the TF meetings, I have mentioned a couple of times that I believe that
the TF needs to, when it issues a FINAL REPORT, tell the Council and the
community that its work is completed, to make that clear and report on that
fact, which allows the Council to thank the TF, but also to 'close' the TF,
unless for some reason, the TF does not find that their work is completed
after they review the public comments. 

 

I know you are looking for questions to help to launch the comments with the
public comment process. For the policy staff and chair's consideration, I
suggest that it could be very helpful to have a concise and easy to
understand 'roadmap' that shows what the earlier WHOIS policy and analysis
work was, what the work output on the present ToR is, and what happens after
the Final report - e.g. the Council's next steps, including consultation
with the GAC and other SOs as part of the overview for the Monday forum in
Sao Paolo.  Information like this is sometimes in a FAQ that helps the
reader understand where 'we' have been and where 'we' are headed in terms of
process. 

 

Regards,

 

Marilyn Cade

BC Rep to the WHOIS TF

  _____  

From: owner-gnso-dow123@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-dow123@xxxxxxxxx] On
Behalf Of Maria Farrell
Sent: Friday, November 17, 2006 10:04 AM
To: 'Marilyn Cade'; gnso-dow123@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx; 'Jordyn A. Buchanan'
Cc: 'Denise Michel'; 'Dan Halloran'
Subject: [gnso-dow123] RE: Comments on the Revised Preliminary Task Force
Report on Whois Services

 

Hi Marilyn,

 

I know you're planning to send a redlined version, so just a couple of quick
responses/questions in lieu of it.

 

I had thought that as this report is on items 2, 3 and 4 of the terms of
reference, guided by the definition of purpose adopted by the council, it
would not re-visit the issues covered in the final task force report on
purpose. I am happy to go along with what the TF wants, but my assumption
had been that this report sticks substantively to terms of reference 2, 3
and 4, and name checks the ToR on purpose by referring and linking to the
relevant report. 

 

Minor issue; 'Task Force' versus 'task force' - when referring to the task
force with its full title, I capitalise it. When referring generically to
the task force in the body of some text, I don't. It should be consistent,
but I'll check that. 

 

On asking for the constituency statements, the task force had discussed
making the call for statements at the same time we launch the public
comments. That should be next week after the task force vote. I'll put in
the dates of opening and closing of the comment period as soon as the vote
happens - that way I know exactly when it will start, barring any last
minute surprises!

 

Finally, I will consult with Liz on how we have indicated support in the
other recent PDPs so that I have that information available. 

 

The rest of the points on how next week's meeting will run, I leave to
Jordyn. 

 

All the best, Maria

 

  _____  

From: Marilyn Cade [mailto:marilynscade@xxxxxxxxxxx] 
Sent: Friday, November 17, 2006 10:54 AM
To: 'Maria Farrell'; gnso-dow123@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx; Jordyn A. Buchanan
Cc: 'Denise Michel'; 'Dan Halloran'
Subject: Comments on the Revised Preliminary Task Force Report on Whois
Services

Dear Maria, Jordyn and fellow TF members

 

Thanks Maria, for the quick turn around on the Preliminary Task Force
Report. I understand that we are intended to vote on this on Monday.
However, I have sent to the full TF my suggestions for adding in the
appropriate references to the Council's WHOIS Resolution, as well as the
full description of the Council's resolution regarding the discussion of the
two options on purpose of contact data. I also note that actually, on page
7, you missed the final report of the WHOIS Task Force/ I just emailed the
document to you from the archive. 

 

Also, throughout the document, Task Force occurs some times as task force. I
also corrected/or at least offered a correction of the Council's designation
of Jordyn as an independent expert, without voting, and Avri Doria, as an
independent expert, with voting rights. 

 

There is also one clarification question about when the request to the
constituencies is actually being made and that the date be inserted when
that date is determined and the dates of the opening and closing of the
public comment period.

 

I do need clarification, Jordyn, on how you will progress the call on Monday
related to the voting on the report, since I have to arrange to leave
drafting sessions at the ITU Plenipot in order to participate in the call.
Are you reviewing the report by sections and approving? 

 

Also, a point of order: I believe that the policy TFs  have evolved to using
a 'strong support, medium support, etc. A Task Force actually does not 'show
consensus'; that is the responsibility of the Council, as I recall, in a
supermajority vote. I would recommend that staff and chair consult with Liz
Williams/Avri Doria and perhaps Bruce/Liz regarding how we are 'showing
support' in the other TFs, so that we have some consistency. Even if we
think we as a TF are able to discern and manage different approaches, we are
after all trying to gather public comment and the public will be receiving
two other TF reports in the near future as well - PDP 05 and PDP 06.   

 

Thus, for clarification, chair, are we first showing support to sections,
and then taking a show of support to approving the document for public
comment? 

 

I am sorry to be late in getting to this, but many of my comments were fixed
by other TF members and by Maria, as you have evolved the document; thus I
offer a  minimum of input. Like everyone I am struggling to get ICANN policy
comments done while doing my day job. 

 

 

  _____  

From: owner-gnso-dow123@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-dow123@xxxxxxxxx] On
Behalf Of Maria Farrell
Sent: Thursday, November 16, 2006 3:54 PM
To: gnso-dow123@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [gnso-dow123] Revised Preliminary Task Force Report on Whois
Services

 

Dear task force members,

 

Attached is the revised Preliminary Task Force Report on Whois Services
ahead of the scheduled vote on the report during next Monday's call (20
November).

 

There are two versions; one with changes marked, and a clean version. 

 

All the best, Maria