[council] GNSO Council teleconference minutes FeB. 20, 2003

["DNSO SECRETARIAT" <DNSO.SECRETARIAT@dnso.org>]

[To: council@dnso.org]

Dear Council members,

Please find the GNSO Council teleconference minutes, February 20, 2003.
A text version will be following if you have difficulty reading the html
version.

If there are any changes you would like made, please contact me.

Thank you,
GNSO Secretariat

Title: notes/20021003.NCtelecon-minutes.html

ICANN/DNSO

GNSO Council Teleconference on 20 February 2003 - minutes

21 February 2003.

Proposed agenda and related documents
http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20030220.GNSOteleconf-agenda.html

List of attendees:
Philip Sheppard - Commercial & Business users C.
Marilyn Cade - Commercial & Business users C.
Grant Forsyth - Commercial & Business users C. Absent, apologies, proxy to Marilyn Cade
Greg Ruth - ISCPC
Antonio Harris - ISCPC
Tony Holmes - ISCPC - absent - apologies, proxy to Antonio Harris
Philipp Grabensee - Registrars
Ken Stubbs - Registrars
Bruce Tonkin - Registrars
Roger Cochetti - gTLD
Jordyn Buchanan - gTLD
Cary Karp - gTLD
Ellen Shankman - Intellectual Property Interests C. - absent, apologies proxy to Laurence Djolakian
Laurence Djolakian - Intellectual Property Interests C.
J. Scott Evans - Intellectual Property Interests C. - absent, apologies proxy to Laurence Djolakian
Harold Feld - Non Commercial users C.
Chun Eung Hwi - Non Commercial users C.
Erick Iriate -Non Commercial users C.

14 Council Members
Louis Touton - ICANN General Counsel

Thomas Roessler- Interim At-Large Committee Liaison (ALAC)

Task Force representatives invited:
Steve Metalitz - Intellectual Property Interests C. - WHOIS task force
Ruchika Agrawal - Non Commercial users C. - Whois task force
Jeff Neuman - gTLD Registry C. - Transfer Task Force
Ross Rader - Registrars C. - Transfer Task Force
Dan Steinberg - Transfer Task Force

Glen de Saint Géry - GNSO Secretariat

MP3 recording of the meeting Philippe Renaut - GNSO Secretariat/AFNIC
http://www.dnso.org/dnso/mp3/20030220.GNSOcouncil-teleconf.mp3

 

Quorum present at 15:10 (all times reported are CET which is UTC + 1 during winter time in the northern hemisphere).

Bruce Tonkin chaired this teleconference.

• Item 1: Approval of the Agenda
  http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20030220.GNSOteleconf-agenda.html
  
  Agenda approved
  

• Item : Summary of last meeting
  http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/2002O116.GNSOteleconf-minutes.htm
  
  Ken Stubbs moved the adoption of the minutes seconded by Laurence Djolakian .
  The motion was carried unanimously.
  
  Decision 1: Motion adopted.
  
  
  
• Item 3: Ratify e-mail vote on ITU resolution
  http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20030204.Voteb1.html
  
  Bruce Tonkin asked Louis Touton how the vote should be recorded in the light of the sections from the bylaws quoted below and whether the number of votes cast per constituency was applicable.
  Louis Touton responded that in the current version of the bylaws the quorum was based on a count of heads and the votes per constituency were applicable.
  
  http://www.icann.org/general/archive-bylaws/bylaws-15dec02.htm#X
  Section 8
  A majority of the total number of GNSO Council members then in office shall constitute a quorum for the transaction of business, and the act of a majority of the GNSO Council members present at any meeting at which there is a quorum shall be the act of the GNSO Council, unless otherwise provided herein.
  http://www.icann.org/general/archive-bylaws/bylaws-15dec02.htm#X-5
  Section 2
  The number of votes that members of the GNSO Council may cast shall be equalized so that the aggregate number of votes of representatives selected by the Constituencies (currently the gTLD Registries and Registrars) that are under contract with ICANN obligating them to implement ICANN-adopted policies is equal to the number of votes of representatives selected by other Constituencies. Initially, each member of the GNSO Council selected by the gTLD Registries Constituency or the Registrars Constituency shall be entitled to cast two votes and all other members (including those selected by the Nominating Committee) shall be entitled to cast one vote. In the event that there is a change in the Constituencies that are entitled to select voting members of the Names Council, the Board shall review the change in circumstances and by resolution revise the procedure for equalization of votes in a manner consistent with this paragraph 2.
  
  Bruce Tonkin confirmed that a quorum of members voted and there was quorum on the teleconference call.
  The Secretary read out the list of names and the vote registered for each person.
  http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20030204.Voteb1.result.html
  14 Council members agreed to the resolution, (two not recorded on the electronic ballot; one lost ballot and vote by e-mail to the Secretariat, one person voted in person on the call)
  2 Abstentions, Chun Eung Hwi and Roger Cochetti (recorded as NO vote on the ballot as they were incorrectly completed on the ballot form)
  1 person did not vote.
  The resolution was carried by 19 votes in favour (from 14 members, 2 abstentions and 1 person did not vote.
  
  
• Decision 2. ITU Resolution below adopted
  WHEREAS, the GNSO Council, as the newly launched Council of the Generic Names Supporting Organization, (hereinafter "the Council"):
  o confirms its support to the participation of country code top-level domain (ccTLD) registries within ICANN, looks forward to the establishment of the new Country Code Names Supporting Organization as the body to address ccTLD issues,
  o commits itself to collaborative work with that Supporting Organization on policy issues of mutual concern including the stability of the Internet;
  o recognizing that the development of various processes, and resulting bylaws which will establish the Country Code Names Supporting Organization are still under development, commits itself to collaborative work on policy issues of mutual concern in the interim;
  WHEREAS, the Council commits itself to collaborative work with the ICANN Government Advisory Committee (GAC) on policy issues of mutual concern including the stability of the Internet; WHEREAS, the Council notes a proposed meeting to be hosted by the International Telecommunications Union (ITU) and its member countries, which will discuss issues related to ICANN and ccTLDs.
  
  The Council Resolves:
  to welcome the interaction of ICANN with relevant governments and inter-governmental entities (such as the International Telecommunications Union (ITU), the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO), the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) and the European Union (EU)) through the Governmental Advisory Committee;
  to encourage governments and such governmental entities to consider ICANN as the primary venue to address Internet naming and numbering issues within the mission of ICANN;
  to encourage and welcome governments and such governmental entities to attend and participate in ICANN's venues and meetings and to work actively within ICANN.
  
  
  
• Item 4. Transfers
  - receive Transfers Implementation Committee report http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20030130.TransfersImpFinalReport_v5.html
  - receive update from Transfers Task Force
  - discussion on updates
  - vote to approve any revisions to the Transfers Recommendations
  - vote to approve forwarding Transfer Task Force report incorporating the Transfers Implementation Committee report to the ICANN Board
  http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20030212.NCTransferTF-gaining-and-losing-registrars.html
  
  Bruce Tonkin summarized the procedure: At the December Council meeting
  http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20021214.NCteleconf-minutes.html
  it was decided to form a Transfer implementation committee consisting of Registrars, Registries and user representatives to consider whether the recommendations of the Transfer Task Force were implementable. The implementation committee found the recommendations to be implementable. The Transfer Task Force reviewed the implementation committee's report, made minor changes and included it in the Final Transfer Task Force report.
  Marilyn Cade, announced that there were two Transfer Task Force members on the call willing to answer questions and give explanations on the Final Transfer Task Force report before Council, Jeff Neuman from the registry Constituency and Ross Rader from the Registrars Constituency.
  Laurence Djolakian asked whether there had been any input from the Constituencies since the Council meeting in Amsterdam, to which Marilyn Cade responded that there had been none.
  Roger Cochetti asked what minor aspects of the implementation group were not included in the report and if there were any significant changes?
  Bruce Tonkin confirmed that the substance of all changes from the transfer implementation group were accepted with minor grammatical improvements.
  Ross Rader from the Transfer task force, in response to the question, noted that the only real departure from the implementation committee was in recommendation 24, where rather than accept the request to replace the recommendation, the two recommendations were merged into one.
  Jeff Neuman, also from the Transfer Task Force, concurred with Ross Rader that the changes were minor.
  Bruce Tonkin explained that a supermajority vote, 66 % was necessary for the Final Transfer Task Force report to be sent to the ICANN Board for approval as consensus policy, while a majority vote meant that the ICANN Board could decide how to deal with the report as it was not formally a consensus position. Registrars and Registry constituency members each had two votes in accordance with the new bylaws:
  http://www.icann.org/general/archive-bylaws/bylaws-15dec02.htm#X section 5 (2)
  Bruce Tonkin asked whether the period of time necessary to implement the policy had been stipulated in the report.
  Marilyn Cade said that it had not been included and could probably not be done without consultation with the ICANN staff.
  Bruce Tonkin noted that Registrars and Registries would be required to to make an implementation time estimate and that both the Transfer Task force, and the Transfer implementation committee would welcome consultation with the ICANN staff on this matter.
  Louis Touton stated that implementation involved not only time for the contracted parties to technically implement, but also questions regarding the legal structure, that is, the contracts that are involved. Some changes, though not sure in the case of Transfers, may require filtering down through renewing or revising all the 180 agreements that there are with Registrars which could take up to 5 years.
  Thus, the implementation will take appreciation of how particular parties stand on renewing or revising their contracts.
  Marilyn Cade asked whether parties would be able to change voluntarily, to which Louis Touton replied that the details would have to be looked at before answering.
  Bruce Tonkin stated that the Transfer implementation committee report stated that, time would be required to reach full compliance, with 3 to 6 months on the technical side:
  
  
  Bruce Tonkin moved a formal vote on accepting the Final Report of the Transfer Task Force.
  
  The Final Report of the Transfer Task Force was unanimously accepted by the GNSO Council with 24 votes to carry the motion.
  
  Decision 3: Final Report of the Transfer Task Force was unanimously accepted by the GNSO Council and will be forwarded to the ICANN Board as a consensus policy.
  
  Bruce Tonkin thanked the Chair of the Transfer Task Force, Marilyn Cade, and Ross Rader in particular for the editing of the report as well as all the Transfer Task Force member for the voluntary work they contributed.
  Marilyn Cade thanked all the Transfer task force members for their unstinted work, as well as the community for their participation and the Registrars and Registries who met at short notice during the ICANN meetings in Shanghai.
  
  The Transfer Task Force having concluded their work, was officially disbanded.
  
  
• Item 5: WHOIS
  - receive WHO's Implementation Committee report http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20030130.WHOISImpFinalReport_v4.html
  - receive update from WHOIS Task Force
  - discussion on updates vote to approve proposed WHOIS Recommendations
  - vote to approve forwarding WHOIS Task Force report incorporating the WHOIS Implementation Committee report to the ICANN Board
  http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20030219.WhoisTF-accuracy-and-bulkaccess.html
  
  
  Bruce Tonkin summarized the issue: at the Council meeting in December
  http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20021214.NCteleconf-minutes.html
  no decision was taken on the Final Whois Task Force recommendations. An implementation committee consisting of registrars, registries, two members of the WHOIS Task Force Steve Metalitz and Thomas Roessler and a representative from the non commercial users constituency, Ruchika Agrawal, was formed to revise the recommendations.The implementation committee report stated that the recommendations were not implementable in their current form and recommended some changes that were consistent with the intent to improve accuracy and reduce the use of bulk WHOIS for marketing. The WHOIS task force took the implementation report into account in formulating its final consensus recommendations. The final report incorporates an analysis of the WHOIS implementation committee report, and further public comments received since the meeting in Amsterdam.
  [Note the Interim At-Large Advisory Committee submitted a statement to the council shortly before the meeting. This is included here for reference:
  Interim At-Large Advisory Committee Comments on the WHOIS Task Force's Final Report on Accuracy and Bulk Access
  
  Introduction
  
  The Interim At-Large Advisory Committee thanks the WHOIS Task Force for its exhaustive and diligent work on challenging policy issues, and appreciates the opportunity to submit its comments on the Task Force's Final Report on Accuracy and Bulk Access. We have considered the Task Force's recommendations with a focus on their effect on individual Internet users, but also within a broader policy context, and have tried to identify priorities for further work where we believe that it needs to be undertaken.
  The committee is aware that the Task Force is currently in the process of producing issues reports on several topics; these issues reports will probably cover many of the broader points we make in this document. We hope that the present statement can serve as a useful contribution to that work. We are also looking forward to further contributing to the issues reports themselves and to the general discussion on WHOIS issues.
  
  WHOIS Accuracy
  
  The impact of any measures for the improvement of WHOIS Accuracy must be considered with two very different classes of registrants in mind.
  On the one hand, there are those registrants who welcome (or maybe just accept) the publication of their data through the WHOIS database, and have a desire that accurate data are published that way. There is no need for any formal "enforcement" of accurate WHOIS data with respect to this class of registrants -- instead, any measures to improve WHOIS data accuracy for this class of registrants are about making registrars' processes more registrant-friendly, and easier to use. An annual opportunity to review and easily correct WHOIS data without sanctions in the case of registrant's non-response -- as recommended by the Task Force as policy 1.A -- is one such step.
  
  The second class of registrants is much more complex to handle: Those who do not accept publication of personal data in registrars' and registries' WHOIS systems, and provide "inaccurate" contact information to registrars. There are various reasons registrants may have for this behaviour, both legitimate and illegitimate; even worse, the concepts of legitimate and illegitimate reasons vary across cultures and across constituencies.
  
  A careful balance of diverging interests will have to be found in further policy work. This balance will not only have to involve considerations on how to ensure accurate WHOIS data: It will also have to take into account the uses various parties may have for WHOIS data, and the conditions under which the data are being made accessible. It will, finally, have to take into account legitimate privacy interests of registrants, and applicable laws in force in a wide variety of jurisdictions.
  
  Considering the Task Force's recommendations, the ALAC observes that any measures designed to enforce accuracy of publicly available WHOIS data against the will of the domain name holder will shift the existing de-facto balance in a way which benefits those who want to use the data (for whatever purpose, legitimate or illegitimate), and which causes problems for those who don't want to publish these data (once again, both for legitimate and illegitimate reasons).
  
  The specific steps proposed in chapter II.1.B of the Task Force's report describe a complaint mechanism, by which a third party can trigger registrars to investigate the accuracy of existing WHOIS data. This mechanism is presented as a practical recommendation, not as a consensus policy. It is mostly based on the recommendations of the GNSO's WHOIS Implementation Committee.
  
  The ALAC appreciates that the process attempts to provide some basic safeguards against fraudulent complaints by giving registrars some leeway to ignore obviously unjustified complaints, and protect bona fide registrants. Once a complaint is found justified, the registrar will send an inquiry to the registrant (through any available contact points), and ask the registrant to provide updated information. Any updated information received is subject to "commercially reasonable steps" to check its plausibility; presumably, these steps will involve automated heuristics. If these heuristics fail, "the registrant should be required to provide further justification." ALAC interprets this to imply that automated heuristic plausibility checks alone should not, in general, be a reason for registrars to place existing domain names on hold, or cancel registrations -- in particular in those situations in which the registrant has been successfully contacted through some communications channel. ALAC also observes that, given that many registrars accept customers around the globe, it may frequently be easy for bad faith registrants to provide "plausible" data which are still not useable as contact information.
  
  The registrant only has limited time to respond to registrar's inquiry, which is not specified in the Task Force's final report. The ALAC believes that the WHOIS Implementation Committee's proposal to apply a 30 day time limit is reasonable. Shorter time limits bear a variety of risks for bona fide registrants which have been pointed out in many of the comments received by the WHOIS Task Force. If necessary, the ALAC is available to contribute to any further discussion of this issue.
  
  When accurate WHOIS data are not provided during the correction period, the domain name is put on hold according to the process proposed by the Task Force; the registration is not immediately cancelled. ALAC appreciates that this is a step designed in order to provide additional safety to registrants, and to avoid certain incentives for abuses of the accuracy complaint mechanism.
  
  Bulk Access
  
  The Task Force's policy 2.A proposes that "use of bulk access WHOIS data for marketing should not be permitted." In order to implement this policy, the Task Force suggests a change to the bulk access agreement which is described in section 3.3.6 of the RAA, and observes that the bulk-access provision in section 3.3.6.6 of the RAA would become inapplicable. The WHOIS Implementation Committee has, in its final report, stated that more specific language defining "marketing activities" would be desirable. The ALAC cautions that any such specification would have to ensure that no marketing use of bulk data is permitted unconditionally which would have been covered by the current RAA language's opt-out provision.
  
  The ALAC appreciates that the Task Force's recommendations are an attempt to limit undesired side effects of bulk access. But it is not clear to what extent the new policy will indeed have the desired effect on marketing uses of WHOIS data, since the enforceability of registrars' bulk access agreements is questionable.
  
  Thus, while the ALAC clearly supports the Task Force's recommendation, a more fundamental review of the RAA's bulk access provisions must be undertaken. Those purposes within the scope of ICANN's mission and core values for which bulk access needs to be granted (if any) should be clearly identified, and bulk access should only be made available for this limited set of purposes, and to trustworthy data users. The review process will also need to take into account legal concerns, such as the ones recently articulated in the European Commission's contribution on WHOIS. The At-Large Advisory Committee considers a review process of the RAA's bulk access provisions a priority, and will contribute to it.
  
  Besides these concerns about the RAA's bulk access provisions, the At-Large Advisory Committee also observes that query-based WHOIS can be abused to automatically obtain WHOIS information about large numbers of domains, as evidenced by a recent attempt to copy Nominet's WHOIS database.
  
  Conclusion
  
  The Task Force's recommendations to systematically enforce the accuracy of WHOIS data shift the existing balance between the interests of data users and data subjects in favor of data users. In an environment where registrants have perceived "inaccurate" data to be one of the most practical methods for protecting their privacy, this shift of balance is reason for concern. It will inevitably increase the need for privacy protection mechanisms to be built into the contractual framework.
  The Task Force's recommendations on Bulk Access remove one possibility for undesirable uses of WHOIS data. The effectivity of this step is, however, unclear since other ways to access WHOIS data en masse remain open.
  Both observations together lead to the common conclusion that the Task Force's recommendations can only be first steps towards a future WHOIS policy environment. That future WHOIS policy environment will have to be designed with a renewed focus on enforceability. In particular, this implies that the future policy environment will have to directly address major issues left open at this point of time - such as registrants' privacy. Relying upon non-enforcement of policy instead is not an option.
  
  The ALAC is available to contribute to future discussions on revising WHOIS policy. These discussions should begin as swiftly as possible.]
  
  Chun Eung Hwi asked how the input of the non commercial constituency was included.
  Marilyn Cade asked the members of the WHOIS Task Force that were on the call to identify themselves:
  Steve Metalitz, Thomas Roessler and Ruchika Agrawal were present.
  Marilyn Cade asked Chun Eung Hwi whether his question related to the input of the non commercial users constituency (NCUC) to the implementation process or to the inclusion of the NCUC input to the work of the WHOIS Task Force over all in the final report.
  Chun Eung Hwi explained that the WHOIS implementation committee's goal to review the implementation process was limited and that the main concern was with the recommendations of the WHOIS Final report.
  Bruce Tonkin stated that it was necessary to respond to the minority position put forward by the NCUC within the WHOIS task force that related to the need to take privacy into account.
  Chun Eung Hwi clarified the position, saying that the recommendations of the WHOIS task force were based on assumptions that privacy issues could be dealt with after the recommendations were accepted in the form of an issues report. During the work of the WHOIS task force the NCUC representative discovered that privacy and accuracy were two related issues and thus the assumptions of the recommendations, challenged by the NCUC representative in a minority report, were not acceptable to the NCUC.
  Marilyn Cade clarified the WHOIS task force assumptions from the beginning when Paul Kane was the WHOIS task force chair, through analyzing the questionnaire, to the decision made by the task force recognizing that more work was needed on privacy, accuracy and bulk access. In addressing bulk access, two areas were covered, misuse of the data, and the possibility of data being sold in ways the registrants did not concur with, because of privacy concerns. The interim report (http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20021015.NCWhoisTF-interim-report.html
  had an extensive list of recommendations on consensus policy, that were narrowed down as achievable at the present, taking into account concerns about privacy problems based on feedback from the community of how inaccurate data harms the registrant and registrar.
  The WHOIS task force tried to achieve a balance asking the registrar to remind the registrant about the importance of accurate data.
  Privacy has been identified as a subject for further work and the task force is cognizant of the privacy issues in the limited recommendations put forward.
  Antonio Harris, WHOIS task force co-chair responded as follows to the NCUC minority position:
  - if one wants to hide identity, you don't need a top level (gltd) domain. There are organizations that would provide second level domains to protect the identity of the registrant.
  - in Argentina privacy laws prohibits data bases of personal data, but a person can consent to the display of data and buying a domain name means that the person consents to the display of the data provided.
  - the allegation that people's lives were in danger was far fetched. There were public rights organizations to harbor those who wanted freedom of speech and did not want to be detected by their governments.
  Thomas Roessler, a WHOIS task force member stated that the working assumption of the task force was that privacy issues and bulk access would be treated by the GNSO as priorities and issues reports on these matters were being prepared to present at the Council meeting in Rio de Janeiro.
  
  Roger Cochetti dropped off the call for a short time, proxy to Cary Karp.
  
  Steve Metalitz, a WHOIS task force member, stated that the NCUC was invited to participate throughout the working of the task force where dissenting opinions were expressed and addressed during the process.The comment from the NCUC came out two weeks after the final report, so it was difficult to respond on the merits.
  Laurence Djolakian agreed with the comments made by Antonio Harris and expressed concern that the NCUC comments had been received so late, while the task force work had been in progress for more than a year. In addition the question was asked whether the NCUC had been regularly informed of the work in progress.
  Ruchika Agrawal, a WHOIS task force member stated that enforcement of accuracy of WHOIS data has serious implications on privacy. Domain name registrants have legitimate reasons for providing inaccurate WHOIS data to protect their privacy and personal identifiable information particularly when there were no privacy safeguards in place. As a way to move forward the NCUC asked that the enforcement of accuracy would be concurrent with the assurance of privacy safeguards. The NCUC has consistently raised privacy issues since the first interim report was published.
  Bruce Tonkin summarizing said before accuracy policy would be implemented, new policy/recommendations would be required to deal with privacy.
  Thomas Roessler wanted to make sure that the same issues were being understood. The WHOIS report has two different statements on accuracy:
  - accuracy recommendations on consensus policy sending regular reminders to registrants
  with no sanctions tied to that policy
  - the way in which the Redemption Grace Period should be applied to domain names which are deleted in the process of an accuracy complaint
  as consensus policies identified in the WHOIS task force report.
  Other recommendations from the task force that existing policy should be enforced in a more stringent way with no process proposed.
  The question was whether Bruce Tonkin and Ruchika Agrawal were in agreement about which part of the report was being discussed.
  Bruce Tonkin explained the difference between accuracy and the display of data. The WHOIS report dealt with the issue of accuracy not with the display of the data. Display of the data raises privacy issues.
  Accuracy and privacy were two different matters.
  Ken Stubbs agreed with Bruce Tonkin and added that the WHOIS task force assumption was that privacy issues would be dealt with on a timely basis in moving forward.
  Bruce Tonkin proposed the formation of a policy development process on privacy for the March meeting agenda in the form of an issues report.
  The NCUC was extended an invitation to create their own issues report on the subject and present it at the Council meeting in March.
  Chun Eung Hwi agreed with disallowing bulk access and narrowing down the scope of the recommendations, in the WHOIS Final report. However he went on to mention that in reality, customers related privacy and accuracy issues. In dealing with the two issues separately there was ambiguity about the relationship.
  Bruce Tonkin said that in later work, privacy and accuracy issues could be recommended as consensus policy.
  Marilyn Cade stated that the WHOIS task force is preparing 3 issues reports:
  - Privacy
  - Uniformity and consistency of data elements and searchability
  - Consideration of further work on accuracy under the understanding that the examination of privacy issues is being undertaken.
  Jordyn Buchanan commended the WHOIS Task Force on the work accomplished, and agreed that a policy development process on privacy should be rapidly initiated. At the time of implementation, Privacy and Accuracy must be linked together and not addressed independently. Furthermore, Privacy issues may require modifications to existing Consensus Policy.
  The gTLD registries are concerned that once Consensus Policy is endorsed, particularly in the area of Accuracy, any such policy cannot (and should not) be implemented without providing due consideration to Privacy.
  In addition the task force report recommendations should be accepted and until such time as the privacy recommendations have been developed, the accuracy recommendations should not be mandatory but rather act as guidelines.
  Roger Cochetti agreed with Jordyn Buchanan
  Bruce Tonkin summarized:
  - resolve to accept the recommendations of the WHOIS task force
  - include a recommendation that the recommendations made by the WHOIS Task Force in the Final Report do not become mandatory until the privacy policy development process is completed.
  Marylin Cade asked for clarification on the consensus policy statement on accuracy relating to the redemption grace period and said that conversations with registrars and registries showed that a domain name was rarely deleted because of inaccurate data.
  Jordyn Buchanan stated that the findings of the Deletes task force indicated that the Redemption Grace Period was too expensive and it should not be obligatory for registries to implement.
  Bruce Tonkin suggested resolving to accept the WHOIS report, transmit it to the Board, but that it should not be implemented for 6 months, during which time a policy development process on privacy would be initiated and with issues arising the accuracy recommendations could be modified.
  Laurence Djolakian asked why the report would be sent to the Board if it was not binding.
  Bruce Tonkin explained that the timing of the implementation was set at 6 months, during which time the Council could change the recommendations as they stand.
  Thomas Roessler cautioned about a blanket referral as there was no dissension on the bulk access recommendations.
  Louis Touton took up Thomas Roessler's concern and said that in addition to having 2 general issues on which consensus policy is recommended in the report there was other material that did not relate to consensus policy and is a reaffirmation of existing policies, thus additional specificity would be appropriate.
  Jordyn Buchanan agreed with the previous views and added that timing should be tied to work on privacy rather than a time period.
  
  Roger Cochetti dropped off temporarily, proxy to Jordyn Buchanan
  
  Marilyn Cade commented on the reasons for inaccurate data and expressed concern about delaying dealing with bulk access.
  Jordyn Buchanan pointed out that the intent was not to stop dealing with the problem but to tie privacy to the mandatory implementation of the recommendations.
  Bruce Tonkin proposed that the suggested changes for the implementation of accuracy be considered in the light of privacy issues, with a delay of 6 months for the implementation of privacy and
  that the bulk access provisions be presented to the Board for immediate action.
  Louis Touton commented that there were 2 sets of consensus policies in the report each with 2 parts.
  - Accuracy
  -Bulk access
  While most of the discussion was focussed on accuracy, and the accuracy consensus policies say:
  a. annually the registrar should remind the registrant that false information can be grounds for cancellation of the registration.
  This would be a new requirement on registrars that annually they provide a reminder.
  b. that a name deleted for inaccuracy not be restored until the updated data is provided.
  This recommendation is inherent in the structure.
  Surprise was expressed by the discussion about the linkage of accuracy and privacy while the accuracy provisions were not so "earth shaking".
  
  Bruce Tonkin proposed voting on the entire WHOIS Task Force Final report which includes 4 consensus policy recommendations.
  (1) At least annually, a registrar must present to the Registrant the current WHOIS information, and remind the registrant that provision of false WHOIS information can be grounds for cancellation of their domain name registration. Registrants must review their WHOIS data, and make any corrections.
  (2) When registrations are deleted on the basis of submission of false contact data or non-response to registrar inquiries, the redemption grace period -- once implemented -- should be applied. However, the redeemed domain name should be placed in registrar hold status until the registrant has provided updated WHOIS information to the registrar-of-record.
  (3) Use of bulk access WHOIS data for marketing should not be permitted. The Task Force therefore recommends that the obligations contained in the relevant provisions of the RAA be modified to eliminate the use of bulk access WHOIS data for marketing purposes. The obligation currently expressed in section 3.3.6.3 of the RAA could, for instance, be changed to read as follows (changed language underlined):
  "Registrar's access agreement shall require the third party to agree not to use the data to allow, enable, or otherwise support any marketing activities, regardless of the medium used. Such media include but are not limited to e-mail, telephone, facsimile, postal mail, SMS, and wireless alerts."
  The bulk-access provision contained in 3.3.6.6 of the RAA would then become inapplicable.
  
  (4). Section 3.3.6.5 of the Registrar Accreditation Agreement currently describes an optional clause of registrars' bulk access agreements, which disallows further resale or redistribution of bulk WHOIS data by data users. The use of this clause shall be made mandatory.
  
  It is noted that the rest of the report is not meant to be new binding consensus policy.
  
  The motion was carried with 21 votes in favour and 3 votes against. The votes against were registered by Eung Hwi Chun, Harold Feld, and Erick Iriarte.
  
  Decision 4: Final Report of theWHOIS Task Force with the four consensus policy recommendations was accepted by the GNSO Council and will be forwarded to the ICANN Board.
  
  Bruce Tonkin thanked the two WHOIS task force co-chairs and all the task force members for the tens of thousands of work hours put into the report.
  
  
• Item 6. - Budget report
  
  Bruce Tonkin read the resolution proposed by Roger Cochetti at the last Council meeting
  http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20030116.GNSOteleconf-minutes.html
  
  Recognizing that during 2000, AFNIC provided services to the DNSO, mainly consisting of hosting and operating the DNSO Website, without any agreement or contract with the DNSO to do so Recognizing that in 2001, the DNSO Council, on advice from its Budget Committee, agreed to make a payment to AFNIC for these services of $59,400 pending the resolution of three administrative matters Recognizing that two of these administrative matters were resolved but the third, which provided for the transfer of ownership rights over any "software developed by AFNIC for the DNSO during 2000" from AFNIC to the DNSO, became the subject of a dispute between ICANN management, acting as an agent for the DNSO, and AFNIC. Recognizing that this dispute has delayed the payment of the budgeted $59,400 to AFNIC since 2001 and that the software in question is no longer used by the GNSO. The GNSO Council decides to immediately release the above-noted $59,400 in funds to AFNIC for the full settlement of payment for services provided by AFNIC to the DNSO during 2000.
  
  Motion carried unanimously
  
  Decision 5: immediate release of $59,400 in funds to AFNIC
  
  
• Item 7. Procedure to elect GNSO Board seats 13 and 14
  Discuss following proposed procedure and agree on final procedure
  
  Bruce Tonkin proposed the following procedure and timelines:
  
  20 Feb 2003: call for nominations by members of the GNSO Council (14 day period)
  6 March 2003: 14 day e-mail vote for seat 14 on ICANN Board (note: the resulting director will sit on Board from mid 2003 until 2nd quarter 2005)
  25 March 2003: ratify the email vote for seat 14 at the GNSO Council meeting in Rio de Janeiro
  26 March 2003: call for any additional nominations by members of the GNSO Council (7 day period) taking into account result of vote for seat 14 and the need for geographic diversity between the holder of seat 13 and 14
  2 April 2003: 14 day mail vote for seat 13 on ICANN Board (note: the resulting director will sit on the Board from mid 2003 until 2nd quarter 2004)
  17 April 2003: ratify e-mail vote for seat 13 at GNSO Council teleconference
  Each nomination must be accompanied by a brief description of how the candidate meets the following selection criteria (from http://www.icann.org/minutes/minutes-appa-31oct02.htm#VI)
  
  Louis Touton stated that the votes should be counted in an equalized fashion in accordance with the bylaws, article 10 that provides that a majority of the members, at least 10 must be supportive of the prevailing candidate.
  Current bylaws were mentioned taking into account the inconsistency pointed out by Philip Sheppard, and that a revision was underway which would equalize the counting of heads.
  Ken Stubbs asked whether a Board member could be a nominating committee member as well. If some one was nominated by the GNSO to the Board and that person was currently a nominating committee member would that be allowed?
  Louis Touton said that dual service was not prohibited. The prohibition that has been posted in the bylaws correction in this area is that if one serves on the nominating committee one cannot be selected by that nominating committee.
  Bruce Tonkin said that the person on the nominating committee could be selected by the GNSO Council.
  
  Bruce Tonkin called for a vote on the process.
  
  
  The process was carried unanimously.
  
  Decision 6. Process for electing ICANN board members to fill seats 13 and 14.
  The nomination process starts immediately for the next 14 days.
  
  
• Item 8: AOB
  Bruce Tonkin mentioned the GNSO Chair elections.
  Elections took place in September2002 and new elections would normally be in March 2003 according to the Council meeting in December
  http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20021214.NCteleconf-minutes.html
  The question was whether these would take place at the same time as the ICANN Board elections or afterwards.
  Marilyn Cade stated that continuity during the election of Board members and the development of a revised rules of procedure was important and it would be preferable to have a vote for the new chair after the ICANN Board elections.
  Ken Stubbs expressed concern that extra support was needed for the Council and the GNSO chair and urged for a solution.
• Bruce Tonkin agreed to arrange an election for the GNSO chair after the elections for seats 13 and 14 on the Board, but would hold it earlier if requested by the GNSO council.
  
  Bruce Tonkin declared GNSO meeting closed and thanked all the participants for being on the call.
  
  Call ended: 17:00 CET, 16:00 UTC, Thursday 20, February, 3:00 Melbourne time, Friday 21 February 2003.
  
  Next GNSO Council teleconference: Tuesday March 25, 2003 at Rio de Janeiro.
  see: http://www.dnso.org/meetings.html
  
  

---

Information from:

© GNSO Council