[nc-whois] Draft minutes teleconf January 28, 2002

["DNSO Secretariat" <DNSO.secretariat@dnso.org>]

Dear WHOIS Task Force,

This is a resend of the draft minutes in case there is some difficulty in
opening the word document.
DNSO Secretariat

DRAFT  minutes posted to WHOIS TF. Comments to Glen and Marilyn, please on
corrections and edits.

One other important posting has been made by Steve Metalitz to the
individual participants of a key file. If you do not have it, you should
email back to Steve for the document.  Otherwise, you can email me, but I am
offline for the next 9 hours... at outside meeting and won't see your email
until later.

If you need to talk to me, call Marie at (202)457-2789. I will be in touch
with her several times today.

Please make minutes corrections to Glen and to me and we will revise as
appropriate.




WHOIS TELECONFERENCE
Time:  8:00 a.m. EST (U.S.)
Date:  Monday, January 28, 2002

ATTENDEES LIST
"NonCom - YJ Park (MINC)" <yjpark@minc.org>
"gTLD - Sapiro, Miriam" <MSapiro@verisign.com>
"ISP - Tony Harris" <harris@cabase.org.ar>
"ccTLD - Oscar A. Robles Garay" <orobles@nic.mx>
"BC - Marilyn Cade" <mcade@att.com>
"IP - Laurence Djolakian" <Laurence_Djolakian@mpaa.org>
"DNSO Sec - Glen de Saint Géry" <gcore@wanadoo.fr>
"Registrars - Philipp Grabensee" <philg@grabensee.com>
"Secretary to M. Cade - Marie Juliano" <mjuliano@att.com>
"BC  - Bret Fausett" <baf@fausett.com>
"BC  - Troy Dow" <Troy_Dow@mpaa.org>
"Registrars - Ken Stubbs" <kstubbs@dninet.net>
"Registries - Ram Mohan" <rmohan@afilias.info>
"GA(additional) - Kristy McKee "<k@widgital.com>
"GA chair - Thomas Roessler"<roessler@does-not-exist.org>
"IP - Steve Metalitz"<metalitz@iipa.com>

ABSENT:
"NC Chair - Philip Sheppard" <philip.sheppard@aim.be>
"Non Com - Hakikur Rahman" <hakik@sdnbd.org>
 "Registrars - Tim Denton" <tmdenton@magma.ca>
"Non Com - Gilbert Estillore Lumantao" <gilbert.lumantao@lycos.com
"Registries - Karen Elizaga" <karen@elizaga.name>
"GA(additional) - Abel Wisman"<abel@able-towers.com>


AGENDA:

Opening comments: Tony Harris and Marilyn Cade, co-chairs

1) Status of progress in reading responses, by individual:

Each individual will be asked to report on the progress they have made in
whatever assignment they are reading. As it turns out, in order to ensure
some quick progress, some of the constituencies have focused in on the
Statistical 300 over the past few days [and the upcoming weekend] while
others have made progress in both the Statistical 300 and the 3000+.

This report should be: Which you are reading, and a progress report.  If you
have read from both, be sure to distinguish that.

2) Discussion of the perspectives you are gleaning from the Statistical 300.

We will open the floor to open discussion about what we are seeing, whether
there are any trends emerging; what is surprising; what is expected; what
good ideas about any particular category have emerged.

Tony and Marilyn will manage the queue of speakers to ensure everyone gets
to speak in a round robin, then go into more discussion.

3) Consideration of progress to date on the Statistical 300 and brief
discussion/forecast to complete reading these/interim update report

Discuss whether we can formulate a brief draft overview of these findings in
order to have a brief, update report to publish the week before Ghana. This
update will not be for public comment, but to update the community and to
keep them abreast of the TF progress.  Talk about the practicalities of
getting that done; and establish an online agreement to discuss what would
be covered in the update report.

4) Discussion of how to manage the rest of the work, and feasible timelines.

Given what we learned from the 300, what is needed now in relation to the
3000? Should we revise any of our previous ideas? Pros - Cons?  How to scope
the work, and the process better; what are the interim goals for completing
all work; and preparing a final draft report/by when/for posting to the
community?

5) Reporting in Ghana

Ghana participation, discussion of report to the Constituencies, GA, and NC
on the Task Force's work/progress/modifications in schedule. [This may have
to be done online].

6) Other Business

Marilyn and Tony welcomed everyone

1) Status of progress in reading responses, by individual:
200 Batch
Tony:
Tony read 200 batch and stated that he had read the last numbers on 3000.
His approach was in each question to categorize in various tendencies and in
different opinions.
Question 7 - the overwhelming majority could be put in two categories,
a. those wanting a mechanism for verifying the data
b. punishment for people who did not keep it up to date.
Comment:  Tendencies in free text fields in Question 20 present further
challenges for categorization.
Miriam:
Reading in both the batch of  200 AND 300 Statistical.
Format is very difficult to read in 200.
300 format is much easier.
In the 200 batch one does not know anything about the respondent.
Miriam likes the concept of identifying who the respondent is, so she can
build up a picture of the respondent and tie their view to which category
they are in.
Ram:
Reading 200;  he did not find them so disjointed.
His approach was to put the responses on a spreadsheet and collate the
responses.
Couldn't form a picture of the individual and found that there were
completely polar responses.
Marilyn:
Read 50 from 200 batch and similar amount from 300 Statistical.
Prepared a worksheet for herself, repeated options that were provided in the
Yes/No categories to try to categorize answers against options. Seeking to
see whether they validate quantitative answers, offer new ideas and
concepts, etc.
Beginning to see a few trends.
Miriam:
Very  concerned, as it is analytically difficult to draw conclusions from a
disjointed approach.

300 Batch
Laurence:
Reading narrative responses from 300 Statistical;  divided the questions
with Steve and Troy so each are reading 100 from the 300.
Read till question 7
Tried to group them in packages.  At the beginning she found that she was
lost but the more she read, the more themes appeared.
Her approach was to read answers and then group them in "baskets".
The other approach was to read a narrative all the way through 300.

Troy: To be filled in from notes.
Brett:
Read 100 out of 300
Found them all very different.  Challenges to come up with methodology.
-technical changes  mentioned frequently - could be need for fields in
fulfilling that need for technical uses of WHOIS
-policy changes - e.g. enforcement

Oscar:
150 out of 300 - reading underway.
Clear trends in questions 5,6,7,8,10,12, 13.

NOTE: Oscar is providing his summary  of "baskets" he has identified via
email to the group:  This section contains Oscar's submission to the TF:

Question No. 5 (Another purpose of WHOIS, other than those already defined
in the survey)

Trends
1.      Many of the responses that checked this option specified some level
of  "Technical reasons"
2.      And others simply for Ownership information

Question No. 6 (Primary concern: e, other.)

Trends
1.      Accuracy
2.      Privacy of individuals information

Question No. 7 (Ever harmed by bad Whois data? Description of Harmed)

Trends
1.      Incorrect information and difficult to get the true identity of
spammers or cybersquatters
2.      Some of the users reported that many domain names are hidden behind
Registrars identity on the WHOIS database

Surprising elements
Some users/customers may tend to believe that the data accuracy is sole
Registry responsibility

Question No. 7 (Ever harmed by bad Whois data? How to improve)

Trends
1.      To make mandatory for registrants the accuracy of whois data
2.      To establish punishment to domain name owners with inaccurate or
outdated information

Expectations
Users expect to have a way to check for identity and formality through the
WHOIS.
Want to have detailed information for availability of domain names after
expiration

Good ideas/details
Inaccurate records are mainly because of lack of penalties for inaccuracy
Verification mechanisms (testing before registration, periodical contact
with domain name holders)
Standardization/centralization whois services
To allow anonymity in non-commercial domain names, for privacy protection
Knowing the identity of a domain registrant is not as important as the
ability to contact someone at the domain who is responsible for resolving
network management issues



Question No. 8 (If inadequate, what to add what to drop)

Trends
1.      To drop postal address, phone and fax info
Surprising elements
There were some responses that choose to drop most of postal address, email,
phone, registration or expiration date elements

Expectations
Privacy protection



Question No. 10 (WHOIS enhanced capabilities)

What
Should Whois provide enhanced capabilities, who pays?

Trends
1.      Domain name registrations
2.      The search users (subscription, per results, per search, etc)
3.      Registrars


Good ideas/details
Available only to professionals. (what ever that means)
Have different levels of service depending on fees



Question No. 12 (Should ccTLDs provide same elements as gTLD whois? (Why or
why not?))

Trends
1.      Yes. Uniformity and reliability. Easy to use for end users.
2.      No. Costs. Sovereignty. Different applicable laws.
3.      Recommended yes, but not compulsory.

Expectations
Ideally al TLD should have the same information.



Question No. 13 (Should the whois service be uniform, how to achieve)

Trends
1.      Yes. Policies (ICANN, Contracts, etc) and technically (protocols,
software)
2.      No. Bad use risk. Expensive.

Good ideas/details
Uniformity only at the end user/presentation level/layer.
A mirror of original DB for every TLD in a centralized service with
basic/uniform features.

Miriam: (300)
This is a useful analysis format.
There is a list of key issues that could be summarised.
Categories would be useful, eg., Individual, company, Registry, Registrar.
Issues to be focussed on:
a. position on spams
b. whether there should be email, address home address telephone number
information.
c. centralised service or universal service
d. who should pay, the DNH or the Registrar
e. marketing
f. How do they feel about bulk data?

Tony Harris  (300)
Industry responses are also available and Marilyn will send to any new
comers who don't have those. They were distributed by Paul Kane much
earlier, as chair.

No decision was made by the group on whether responses should also be
categorized by category. This can be further discussed in next meeting.

Ken Stubbs (300)
Tried to find common themes rather than who they were.
2 issues came up:
a. individual issues - very concerned about privacy, concerned that the
answers will not be used for other purposes.
b. Commercial side - concern for credibility who are you going to do
business with?

Also, whether there is support for consistent (centralized) service?
Ram (300)
Looking at different queries.
Themes that came up:
a. To allow personal privacy, spam, marketing concerns
b. Maintain all information accurately for:
             I.P matters
       Legal
 Network operations
Keep data as accurate as possible and uniform but no consensus on how to do
this.
IP and commercial versus personal interest

Comments also that should support law enforcement - do not get in way of
needed use. Again, no consensus on how to do.

2 views often mentioned:
protection of minors
Maintenance of WHOIS; providing technically "pure" data for technical
purposes
Minority view: concerns about keeping WHOIS data in escrow and it should be
made available

Thomas (300) [Thomas, can you correct the numbers below in bold/italics;
Glen and Marilyn have different amounts in their notes and need your
clarification].
Read individual questions all the way through at one time.
Made some stats on others.
Reviewed whole text.
Identified:
Concern about the privacy of data of individual domain name  -  data has
been abused
Marketing only with consent
Clear Messages:  145 No , don't sell
130 - opt in
8 opt out.
Law firms use whois data for proof of infringement, etc.
Law Enforcement uses; however, typically can get court order if needed for
access offline.
Escrow -  suggestions for WHOIS for technical means
Suggestion coming through:  Should introduce an abuse contact
Some [not clear from notes how many recommended this] suggestions of need
for national data bases by registrant to manage different national privacy
laws.
Improvements: accuracy and validity of info and it should be available in a
central standardised place
Ideas suggested:
IF request for whois info, the person should identify themselves.
Not conflict with IP/Law Enforcement uses.

Comment on #2041:

YJ  (300)
Answers very subjective; difficult to give credibility.
TF working on summarising answers from 2 to 19
Some questions contradict each other. Further analysis  needed.

Thomas
Difficult to find an objective analytic approach.
Whatever we do, important to recognize will be subjective approach.
Subjectivity is of concern.

Marilyn:  Reminding TF:  Mission of the TF is to consult with the community
as to how the whois is being used and then to make recommendations about
what, if any changes are needed in policy.

What should be done next.
Steve Metalitz
Narrative answers are a small part, statistical answers YES/NO type are most
important
The idea of baskets having 5 or 6 baskets and putting the answers in them.

[Note from co-chairs:  For those who don't have the quantitative responses,
these were sent out earlier by Paul, and newcomers don't have them yet. They
will be sent.]


Kristy:
read last 100 of 300 statistical. recurring themes: - abuse contact needed;
other?
agrees with Thomas; question 2215.

Question 20 presents greatest challenge/ no YES/NO options presented.

Quality of service appears lacking between Registrar and Registrant

General Discussion:
Note from Co-Chairs:  Important to use the YES/NO answers as backdrop of
what the major part of the report will be; the narratives are additional
comments. Narratives should be applied against these responses, and then any
new categories developed, additional suggestions, etc.

Laurence: Statistical responses are background; narratives are saying in
more words.

The idea of "baskets" was discussed  and it was decided to put the free text
into agreed to "baskets".
Ideas via emails should be given about what should go into the baskets
For example questions with different directions.
Could build on Oscar's categories as ideas to start from and reach agreement
by next meeting.

Tony:  Use email to elaborate:
Some ideas for categories:
Spam
Privacy
Centralized WHOIS
Who Pays
Bulk Access rules

Ken:
 reading assigned block in full survey.  Reading 300 as interim.

Miriam: thinks it is important to identify the respondent so can label their
response with who they are.
Tony: agrees that focus should be 300 and consideration of what scales.
Steve: use baskets first on 300

Miriam: thinks that statistics can mislead, feels they show skewing.
Thomas/Tony: not clear that is the case. Bears further discussion and
examination.

There should be a short interim report before Ghana
Ken Stubbs suggested a face to face meeting in Ghana

Miriam: perhaps  more reports from ICANN staff? Get stats of Yes/No only on
the 300? Will this make the report biased/skewed in some way if report on
all 3000 on Yes/No and only provide interim report on Statistical 300.

Marilyn: Don't support more reports; focus on data at hand to move this
along. Getting something out is important. Seem to have enough variations.
Need to get all data to the other variations to the newcomers to the group.
Recommend that we report on the Yes/No, plus a snapshot based on the
statistical 300. Then, we can determine scalability by a further review of
the 3000, which we can complete post Ghana, as well as further refinement of
the Statistical 300 snapshot.

ITEM 3
Accomplish basketing ideas via email and come into next call with more
reading, and suggestions on "baskets"
Conclude and address 300 in interim report

Summary of Recommendation:
Interim report - Basket approach on 300
All statistical data is ready
Interim report should be based on 300 not on Stats report

Steve would first like to look at stats tabulation.

SUMMARY
1.  Oscar to send out what he put together [now incorporated in these
minutes].
2. Proposed baskets still to be finalized in next meeting/conf. call
3. New graphs Paul put together on stats - get them sent out.
4. Set out conference calls for the future - projected calendar - Marie/Glen
5. Begin dialogue on how to do the 3000.  Look at original outline and
everyone can contribute ideas on the list
6. Marilyn and Tony will review outline for the report and  make assignments
to teams for drafting input for sections.

Tony closed the meeting at 10:00EST