Proposed agenda and related documents http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20020912.NCteleconf-agenda.html

List of attendees:

MP3 recording of the meeting by the Secretariat: http://www.dnso.org/dnso/mp3/20020912.NCteleconf.mp3

Quorum present at 15:10 (all times reported are CET which is UTC + 2 during summer time in the northern hemisphere).

Bruce Tonkin chaired this NC teleconference.

Item 1. Summaries of last meetings:

http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20020801.NCteleconf-minutes.htmlhttp://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20020829.NCteleconf-minutes.html

Ken Stubbs moved the adoption of the minutes seconded by Philip Sheppard,
The motion was carried.

Decision 1: Motion adopted.

Item 3: Actions from last meeting- report on suggested process for addressing deletes. (15 minutes)

Bruce proposed the following course of action for dealing with the deletes issue after consultation with Marilyn Cade, chair of transfers task force (where deletes has been discussed in context of transfers and WLS):
Steps are as follows:
(1) Produce an issues report for the NC meeting on 3 Oct 2002. The issues report will be produced using the resources of a small team (deletes issues team) comprising: Bruce Tonkin Alexander Svensson Ross Wm. Rader Ram Mohan Jordyn A. Buchanan Liu, Hong The report will be available by 19 September so that it may be discussed within the constituencies prior to the 3 Oct meeting.
(2) At the meeting of 3 Oct 2002, decide whether to initiate policy action, and whether to create a task force.
(3) If the decision is to create a task force, then an interim membership of the taskforce will be established, and a draft terms of reference developed and posted for consideration by constituencies by 17 October 2002.
(4) If a task force is created, then the NC will discuss and agree on the task force, terms of reference, outcomes and timeline for the task force at the meeting in Shanghai on Tuesday 29 October 2002.

Marilyn Cade proposed that the process as outlined go forward and Ken Stubbs seconded the proposal.
Unanimously accepted by the Names Council members

Decision 2: Accept proposition by Bruce Tonkin following the course of action for dealing with the deletes issue.

Item 4: Update on ICANN Board election process (5 minutes)

Action: Enquire from the members which date, 26 or 27 September is most suitable.

Item 5. - Transfer Task Force - review current status of outcomes with respect to the terms of reference.

Bruce Tonkin summarized as follows:
TRANSFERS Task Force Terms of Reference (process started 11 October 2001):
The purpose of the Task Force on Transfers is to:
--develop broad understanding across the NC of the issues underlying the disputed area of transfers of domain names between registrars
--ensure understanding of the proposed approach as documented in the Registrars' procedural document, which has been voted on by the Registrars
--identify any broad policy issues (separate from contract issues), which are the responsibility of the DNSO -devise recommendations which have broad cross constituency support to any identified problems arising from the language of the existing agreements where policy needs to guide contractual changes.
--undertake a "fast track" working effort, via a Task Force, to present a proposal for NC consideration at Marina del Ray NC meeting and to recommend next steps, if any.
Transfers Task Force Recommendation
Current situation:
The gaining registrar can initiate a transfer after receiving a request from a registrant. There is no minimum standard as to how the gaining registrar should confirm a transfer request, and the process has been open to abuse (e.g robust telemarketing).
The losing registrar can deny a transfer for several reasons, including if the losing registrar doubts the identity of the person that has approved the transfer. There is no standard that defines in detail how the losing registrar determines if the registrant has given approval. This process has also been open to abuse by effectively denying nearly all transfers.
Recommendation:
The transfers task force has proposed a detailed process for improving both the steps above.
The gaining registrars must confirm a transfer request (the original request may contain the auth-code as part of an EPP registry implementation) by attempting to contact either the administrative contact of the domain name in the WHOIS, or the registrant directly.
The administrative contact or registrant must then explicitly consent to the transfer.
This consent is described by a "Form of Authorisation" that provides the name of the gaining registrar and a concise statement describing the impact of the registrant's decision. The gaining registrar must keep records of the consent.
A losing registrar may contact the administrative contact or registrant to confirm the intent to transfer. If the contact denies the transfer, then the losing registrar will deny the transfer on the registrant's behalf (this is sometimes called NACK). If there is no reply, the losing registrar will rely on the processes of the gaining registrar (this is sometimes called default ACK).
Ross Rader commented that it was an accurate summary of the situation.

Marilyn Cade was concerned about the impact that changes would have on the registrants and the way they would be informed,to which Bruce Tonkin agreed that explaining the process to the registrants in a simplified way was important.
Roger Cochetti, quoting a similar procedure in the telephone company world, where a third party was used to provide independent verification of the registrant's wishes, said that a subscriber had to confirm his intent to change while the present recommendations rely on the goodwill of the gaining registrar, as well as the failure of the registrant to reject the notice of transfer. Roger recommended that the task force develop an enforcement structure to avoid gaming of the processes. In addition he felt the work on enforcement should be completed, before a whole evaluation could be made.
In discussion , Ross Rader said that the recommendations stressed the importance of obtaining authority and an enforcement structure to balance the policy.
J.Scott Evans said users were being affected and very dissatisfied with the present state of affairs.

Marilyn Cade said that an interim report would be posted next week for public comment.
There would also be a Transfer session in Shanghai which was planned before the Names Council meeting.

Bruce Tonkin thanked Marilyn Cade, Ross Rader and the task force for the work they have done.

Item 6. - WHOIS Task Force - review current status of outcomes with respect to the terms of reference (see below) - seek feedback from NC members on draft recommendations and points of contention within the task force (30 minutes).

Bruce Tonkin summarized the situation:

WHOIS Task Force Terms of Reference
The WHOIS Committee is to conduct an information gathering exercise and draft a report identifying areas of agreement, and highlighting where more work is necessary and the mechanism by which the identified work is undertaken (Task Force/Working Group). Present the draft report to the community for review and comment, then finalise the report and submit the report to the NC.
WHOIS Task Force Draft Recommendations:
(A) Accuracy of data contained in the WHOIS database
- enforcing the existing contractual provisions in the gTLD environment.
- a method of graduated sanctions or enforcements should be considered, in order to facilitate the actual enforcement of the current policy with respect to WHOIS data accuracy. If not, then more substantial changes to the Registrars Accreditation Agreement itself or the establishment of consensus policies (as necessary) should be considered.
(B) Uniformity of data formats and elements across various TLDs and registrars, including ccTLDs.
- uniform data format across gTLD and ccTLD environments should be evaluated.
uniform WHOIS data elements across all gTLDs.
uniformity of data elements across gTLDs and ccTLDs: should be the subject of separate deliberations taking into account specific aspects of the TLD environments, the value of accountability and transparency across the domain name system and public interest concerns.
(C) Better searchability of WHOIS databases.
ICANN should explore both enforcing the mandate to registrars and registries to provide (or to cooperate in the provision of) such complete WHOIS search service, and a market-based approach based on bulk access to WHOIS data. The Task Force suggests that ICANN explore how best to swiftly develop and implement a plan for cross-registry Whois services, including through third party services, based on bulk access to WHOIS data.
(D) Marketing use of WHOIS data; bulk access provisions.
- review of the current bulk access provisions of the Registrar Accreditation Agreement,
- exploring the option to reduce registrars' discretion in the design of their respective bulk access agreements,
- stronger privacy protection for registrants,
- stronger restrictions on marketing use of WHOIS data,
- facilitation of bulk access for value-added non-marketing services, as originally contemplated in the RAA.

Laurence Djolakian reported that different working groups had been formed to facilitate the work and few public comments were received.
Marilyn Cade said that outreach to people with expertise is going on. An official session of the WHOIS could be held in Shanghai if there is enough interest. The coordination with other groups doing similar work would benefit the Task Force.
Elisabeth Porteneuve asked about the WHOIS concerning IP addresses, and while the Task Force had not examined the issue, Bruce Tonkin said that it had come up in the Security committee and that Rick Wesson could be asked to coordinate on this issue.
Ken Stubbs urged that a methodology for identifying abusers who use bulk data for spamming should be developed and ICANN should enforce provisions, otherwise Governments would step in and impose sanctions. A statement echoed by Philip Sheppard.

Bruce Tonkin said that the 4 areas in the recommendations should be discussed within the constituencies.

Marilyn Cade said that another draft for public comment and elaboration in the 4 areas was due out soon.

Roger Cochetti and Ellen Shankman excused themselves and dropped off the call.

Item 7 - Feedback from Second Interim Implementation Report from the committee of ICANN Evolution and Reform
http://www.icann.org/committees/evol-reform/second-implementation-report-02sep02.htm

Philip Sheppard made 2 comments:
- that the report shows good signs of listening to what thecommunity has been saying. 3 GNSO representatives for the first year will automatically fall to 2 after one year. Suggests a resolution that there should be a review process after one year.
- There is a fundamental shift in stakeholder representation being suggested and double voting to bodies with contractual relationships with ICANN. There should be a balance of interest of the two groups and any variation from the principle of equal stakeholder constituency representation and votes in the proposed GNSO council is unacceptable.
Tony Holmes said that a key issue for the ISPCPs was the representation from 3 to 2 which has geographical diversity implications and the document does not reflect this. In addition he asked about the ability of the Names Council to pick up critical issues that had been discussed and have not been acknowledged and make further representation in the time frame available.
Marilyn Cade said that the attitude conveyed to all broad stakeholder groups, such as the Regional IP Registries (RIR), root server operators, ccTLD and gTLD registries was a very top down process and a risky approach as ICANN is built on a bottom up, with participation from a broad range of stakeholders from the technical community to the policy making bodies to the ccTLDs. She suggested conveying to the Evolution and Reform Committee that it should be an evolutionary process and changes could be destructive. The relationship with the RIRs should be documented, recognition given to establishing a separate Country Code Supporting organisation and define the processes to interact with the gTLDs.

Erick Iriate excused himself and dropped off the call

Elisabeth Porteneuve said that the ccTLDs had made an enormous effort during August to contact the ERC and work out procedures and this has been completely by passed. They have set up a committee with members theychoose and the ccTLDs are very dissatisfied.

Thomas Roessler, GA chair, joined the call 16:25 CET

Oscar Robles said that an assistance group had been set up, but the membership was not known and not to ask the ccTLDs was a mistake. However he felt that it was important to support the work of this group as the working period is only two weeks. He said that at least one of the people was from the European Union.
Invitations have been sent out to an unknown population and only a sub group has some information about the assistance group.
Ken Stubbs said that he was confused by what Elisabeth (no ccTLD members on this committee)and Oscar (committee is in process of being formed) said.
He expressed concern about the ccTLD involvement in developing policy for competitive TLDs, that is, gTLDs. The argument given for their participation is that the ccTLDs are representing their constituency, their residents. While in the beginning when the DNSO was formed there were a series of constituencies to represent various elements within the Internet such as the Business constituency. As we move forward with the future ICANN, the ccTLDs are not enamoured with the Registrars or gTLD Registries being involved in developing policies for them dealing with ICANN, such as redelegation, not the policies in their countries, but the policies dealing with ICANN specifically. If we could get an assurance that the ccTLDs would take a step back and allow those constituencies who deal with policies as they relate to gTLDs, it would be much easier to provide encouragement for their position as we move forward.
Elisabeth Porteneuve responded saying that ccTLDs have only been asking for correct IANA functioning, the updating in IP name servers is not being done by ICANN. The reason for being part of the ICANN process is the IANA function and the root server service.
Ken Stubbs expressed concern on an ongoing basis, and said that he was not saying the ccTLDs should not be part of the process.

Bruce Tonkin suggested that Philip Sheppard, Elisabeth Porteneuve and Marilyn Cade send motions to the Names Council list to be seconded and voted on by e-mail ballot.

Item 8. - Agenda topics for next meeting 3 Oct 2002
- review activities of task forces not covered in this meeting (decide whether terms of reference are still relevant, and whether some task forces should be closed)
* UDRP (review terms of reference and current progress)
* IDN
* Structure task force
- Task force chairs (proposed by Jordyn Buchanan)
- Budget items- update on constituency payments

AOB:
Circulation of resolutions by the 19th September and then send out voting ballot.

Tony Holmes suggested inviting Alejandro Pisanty to the next Names Council teleconference on October 3, 2002.
The final report will have to be considered before Shanghai

Bruce Tonkin thanked the council members for their participation.

The teleconference ended at 17:10