Note: The following is the output of the real-time captioning taken during the GNSO Council meeting held 29 October 2003 in Carthage, Tunisia. Although the captioning output is largely accurate, in some cases it is incomplete or inaccurate due to inaudible passages or transcription errors. It is posted as an aid to understanding the proceedings at the session, but should not be treated as an authoritative record.

GNSO Council Meeting
Carthage, Tunisia
Wednesday, 29 October, 2003

>>BRUCE TONKIN: OKAY.
I THINK WE CAN -- WE HAVE PLENTY OF VOLUME HERE -- NEED TO GET STARTED.
FOR THOSE ON THE PHONE, YOU WILL PROBABLY EXPERIENCE QUITE A BIT ECHO, BECAUSE WE ARE IN A LARGE CHAMBER WITH LOTS OF HARD SURFACES.
MY NAME IS BRUCE TONKIN OF THE GNSO COUNCIL.
I'D LIKE TO IDENTIFY WHO IS HERE FROM THE COUNCIL AND WHO IS HOLDING PROXIES.
SO JUST BASICALLY GO THROUGH A ROLL OF ATTENDANCE.
IF YOU COULD JUST SAY "HERE" IF YOU'RE HERE.
AND THEN IF YOU'RE HOLDING A PROXY, IF YOU CAN LET ME KNOW AS WELL.
JUST START WITH PHILIP SHEPPARD.
>>: PRESENT.
>>BRUCE TONKIN: THAT'S ALL I NEED.
MARILYN CADE.
>>MARILYN CADE: PRESENT.
>>BRUCE TONKIN: GRANT FORSYTHE IS NOT HERE.
IS ANYONE HOLDING HIS PROXY?
GRANT FORSYTH, ARE YOU ON THE PHONE?
DOESN'T SOUND LIKE IT.
>>MARILYN CADE: I'M HOLDING GRANT'S PROXY.
>>BRUCE TONKIN: OKAY.
JEFF NEUMAN, ARE YOU ON THE PHONE?
>>JEFF NEUMAN: I'M ON THE PHONE.
>>BRUCE TONKIN: GREAT.
THANK YOU, JEFF.
CARY KARP.
>>CARY KARP: PRESENT.
>>BRUCE TONKIN: JORDYN BUCHANAN.
>>JORDYN BUCHANAN: THAT'S ME.
>>BRUCE TONKIN: TONY HARRIS.
>>TONY HARRIS: HERE.
>>BRUCE TONKIN: TONY HOLMES.
>>TONY HOLMES: YES.
>>BRUCE TONKIN: GREG RUTH.
>>GREG RUTH: PRESENT.
>>BRUCE TONKIN: CHUN?
>>CHUN EUNG HWI: HERE.
>>BRUCE TONKIN: YEP.
MILTON MUELLER, ARE YOU ON THE PHONE?
>>MILTON MUELLER: YES, I AM.
I'M HERE.
>>BRUCE TONKIN: THANKS, MILTON.
>>MILTON MUELLER: CAN YOU HEAR ME?
>>BRUCE TONKIN: YES, I CAN, JUST.
AND GABRIEL?
YOU'RE HOLDING GABRIEL'S PROXY?
THANKS, CHUN.
KEN STUBBS.
>>KEN STUBBS: PRESENT.
>>BRUCE TONKIN: THOMAS KELLER.
>>THOMAS KELLER: I'M HERE AS WELL.
>>BRUCE TONKIN: WE HAVE A NEW REPRESENTATIVE HERE FROM THE INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY CONSTITUENCY, WHICH IS NIKLAS LAGERGREN I GUESS IS --
>>NIKLAS LAGERGREN: PRESENT.
>>BRUCE TONKIN: ELLEN SHANKMAN.
>>ELLEN SHANKMAN: HERE.
AND I UNDERSTAND I'M HOLDING LYNDA ROESCH'S PROXY.
I UNDERSTAND THAT I'M HOLDING THE PROXY FOR --
>>BRUCE TONKIN: YOU'RE HOLDING THE PROXY FOR LYNDA.
OKAY.
AMADEU?
>>AMADEU ABRIL I ABRIL: HERE.
>>BRUCE TONKIN: DEMI.
>>DEMI GETSCHKO: HERE.
>>BRUCE TONKIN: ALICK WILSON.
>>ALICK WILSON: HERE.
>>BRUCE TONKIN: AND WE HAVE SOME LIAISONS, LIAISON FROM THE GAC AUDRI.
>>AUDRI MUKHOPADHYAY: PRESENT.
>>BRUCE TONKIN: THOMAS ROESSLER FROM THE AT-LARGE ADVISORY COMMITTEE.
>>THOMAS ROESSLER: PRESENT AS WELL.
>>BRUCE TONKIN: I THINK WE ARE ALL PRESENT AND ACCOUNTED FOR THE FIRSTLY, JUST THE GOING THROUGH THE AGENDA, THERE'S ACTIONS FROM THE LAST MEETING, THERE'S DISCUSSION ON WHOIS.
THERE'S A DISCUSSION ON THE ISSUES REPORT ON NEW TLDS.
WE HAVE UDRP, A QUICK SECTION ON BUDGET.
IS THERE ANY OTHER BUSINESS ANYONE WOULD LIKE TO RAISE FOR INCLUSION IN THE AGENDA?
AMADEU.
>>AMADEU ABRIL I ABRIL: YES.
I DON'T KNOW WHETHER WE COULD COUPLE THAT WITH THE PLACES RESERVED FOR THE QUESTION OF THE NUMBER OF REPRESENTATIVES ON THE GNSO COUNCIL, BUT I WOULD LIKE TO RAISE THE ISSUE OF THE STATUS OF THE SELECTION OF THE NEW MEMBERS, BECAUSE WE COULD -- I THINK WE COULD RUN INTO PROBLEMS BY THE END OF THIS MEETING.
>>BRUCE TONKIN: OKAY.
I WILL -- WE'LL COVER THAT UNDER ITEM 3.
MARILYN.
>>MARILYN CADE: THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN.
I WOULD LIKE TO, UNDER "OTHER BUSINESS," DISCUSS THE INTERIM ROUND OF SPONSORED TLDS.
>>BRUCE TONKIN: OKAY.
ELLEN.
>>ELLEN SHANKMAN: UNDER THE "ADDITIONAL BUSINESS," I'D LIKE TO DISCUSS THE ISSUE OF AN ENFORCEMENT.
>>BRUCE TONKIN: OKAY.
ANY OTHER BUSINESS?
OKAY.
THE FIRST ITEM ON THE AGENDA IS APPROVING THE MINUTES FROM THE LAST TWO MEETINGS, THE ONE HELD ON THE 25TH WAS THE LAST SUBSTANTIAL MEETING.
THE ONE ON THE 16TH DEALT WITH THE ISSUE OF THE ISSUES REPORT FOR REGISTRY SERVICES.
CAN I HAVE A PROPOSER TO APPROVE THOSE MINUTES.
>>KEN STUBBS: SO MOVED.
>>BRUCE TONKIN: KEN.
ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, SAY "AYE."
>>: AYE.
>>BRUCE TONKIN: ANY AGAINST?
ANY ABSTENTIONS?
OKAY.
WE'LL MOVE THOSE MINUTES AS PASSED.
ACTIONS ARISING FROM THE LAST MEETING IN SEPTEMBER WAS A REQUEST TO THE BOARD TO CONSIDER THE ISSUE OF CONTINUING WITH THREE REPRESENTATIVES PER CONSTITUENCY INSTEAD OF TWO.
I BELIEVE THAT IS ON THE BOARD AGENDA FOR FRIDAY.
AND AS YET, WE DON'T KNOW THE OUTCOME.
THE SITUATION, IF THERE IS NO DECISION FROM THE BOARD, IS THAT THE PRESENT COUNCIL CEASES AT THE END OF THE ANNUAL MEETING, WHICH IS BASICALLY ON FRIDAY.
AND EACH CONSTITUENCY NEEDS TO ELECT NEW MEMBERS TO THE COUNCIL TO TAKE UP OFFICE AT THAT POINT.
AMADEU HAD REQUESTED, I GUESS, A STATUS REPORT ON WHERE WE'RE UP TO ON THAT.
I CAN REPORT THAT THE REGISTRARS HAVE COMPLETED THEIR ELECTION.
I BELIEVE THE REGISTRIES HAVE AS WELL.
I THINK THE BUSINESS CONSTITUENCY HAS COMPLETED AN ELECTION.
I'M NOT SURE OF THE STATUS -- HAS THE INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY ALSO?
>>ELLEN SHANKMAN: YES.
>>BRUCE TONKIN: THE INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY.
ISPS, TONY HOLMES, DO YOU WANT TO COMMENT ON THAT?
>>TONY HOLMES: THE ISP ELECTION WILL BE STRAIGHT AFTER THIS MEETING.
>>BRUCE TONKIN: OKAY.
NONCOMMERCIALS, CHUN, PERHAPS YOU COULD --
>>CHUN EUNG HWI: WE ARE IN AN ELECTION PROCESS NOW.
>>BRUCE TONKIN: OKAY.
SO IT SOUNDS LIKE WE'VE GOT ABOUT FOUR OF THE CONSTITUENCIES HAVE COMPLETED THEIR ELECTIONS AND TWO WILL BE -- GO AHEAD, PHILIP.
>>PHILIP SHEPPARD: EXCUSE ME, I THOUGHT YOU WERE DOING THE ROUNDS.
JUST REPORT THE BC HAS HELD AN ELECTION AND HAS THE RESULTS.
>>BRUCE TONKIN: I DID INCLUDE THE BUSINESS CONSTITUENCY IN MY BRIEF SUMMARY.
SO IT SAYS FOUR OUT OF THE SIX CONSTITUENCIES HAVE COMPLETED ELECTIONS, AND TWO WILL -- SOUNDS LIKE WILL BE COMPLETED FAIRLY SHORTLY AFTER THIS MEETING.
>>AMADEU ABRIL I ABRIL: OKAY.
JUST TWO QUESTIONS THERE.
FIRST A PERSONAL REQUEST TO THE REMAINING TWO CONSTITUENCIES TO MOVE AHEAD VERY QUICKLY.
BECAUSE IF NOT, THEY WILL NOT HAVE -- I MEAN, WE -- I THINK WE SHOULD RESOLVE THAT WE WILL INVITE THEM, AS OBSERVERS, AT LEAST UNTIL A COUPLE OF REPRESENTATIVES, OR THREE, DEPENDING WHAT HAPPENS ON FRIDAY.
BUT THEY WILL HAVE NO VOTE UNTIL THEY HAVE THE NEW SELECTIONS.
THE OTHER THING IS THAT -- IS A QUESTION FOR THE INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY CONSTITUENCY.
BECAUSE NIKLAS IS ALREADY SITTING HERE TODAY REPLACING LAURENCE DJOLAKIAN, WHICH MEANS HE HAS BEEN ELECTED UNTIL THE END OF THIS MEETING.
IT ALSO MEANS HE HAS BEEN ELECTED IN A SEPARATE VOTE FOR THE NEW TERM.
>>ELLEN SHANKMAN: I WANT TO MAKE IT VERY CLEAR, NIKLAS HAS BEEN ELECTED FOR THE CONTINUING TERM, NOT JUST TO RUN OUT ON FRIDAY.
>>AMADEU ABRIL I ABRIL: (INAUDIBLE).
>>BRUCE TONKIN: YEAH.
I THINK HE IS APPOINTED BOTH TO THE COUNCIL AS IT IS TODAY AND WILL BE APPOINTED TO THE FUTURE COUNCIL IS WHAT ELLEN IS SAYING.
>>ELLEN SHANKMAN: THAT'S CORRECT.
>>KEN STUBBS: CAN I ASK A FAVOR, BRUCE?
WHEN WE GET EXCHANGES LIKE THAT, I COULDN'T HEAR ANYTHING THAT AMADEU SAID THE SECOND TIME IN RESPONSE.
SO MAKE SURE THAT WE PUSH THE BUTTON.
BECAUSE I KNOW HE MADE A COMMENT AFTER ELLEN TALKED.
>>BRUCE TONKIN: YES, YES.
OKAY.
SO IT'S ITEM 3.
ITEM 4 ON THE AGENDA IS THE WHOIS TERMS OF REFERENCE FROM THE GNSO WHOIS STEERING COMMITTEE.
THE STEERING COMMITTEE HAS MET OVER THE LAST COUPLE MONTHS SINCE MONTREAL AND HAS WORKED ON TAKING INTO ACCOUNT THE WHOIS PRIVACY ISSUES REPORT WHICH WAS PRODUCED BY THE ICANN STAFF.
THERE ARE OVER 25 ISSUES PRESENTED THERE.
THE CONSTITUENCIES WERE ASKED TO IDENTIFY WHAT EACH CONSTITUENCY THOUGHT WERE THEIR TOP FIVE ISSUES.
AND WE ALSO TOOK INTO ACCOUNT THE DISCUSSION FROM THE MONTREAL WORKSHOP.
THE RESULT OF THE TOP FIVE ISSUES WAS PUBLISHED AND IS AVAILABLE ON THE GNSO WEB SITE.
AS A RESULT OF THAT, THE COMMITTEE BASICALLY DIVIDED THE ISSUES UP INTO THREE MAIN AREAS.
THE FIRST OF THOSE IS DEALING WITH THE ISSUE OF DATA MINING OF THE PORT-43 AND INTERACTIVE WHOIS FOR MARKETING PURPOSES.
THE SECOND ONE IS LOOKING AT THE ISSUE OF INFORMING REGISTRANTS AT THE TIME OF REGISTRATION WHAT DATA IS COLLECTED AND HOW IT WILL BE MADE AVAILABLE TO OTHERS.
AND THEN IT GOES ON TO LOOK AT THE ISSUES OF WHAT DATA SHOULD BE COLLECTED AND WHAT DATA SHOULD BE DISPLAYED.
THE THIRD AREA IS LOOKING AT ACCURACY.
WHAT I WOULD LIKE TO DO IS TO ASK THE COUNCIL TO CONSIDER EACH OF THOSE THREE AREAS AND THE TERMS OF REFERENCE FOR EACH OF THOSE THREE AREAS FIRST, AND THEN WE CAN THEN GO ON TO DISCUSS HOW WE ACTUALLY RESOURCE THE STUDY OF THOSE THREE AREAS IN THE CONTEXT OF WHAT WE HAVE ON OUR AGENDA FOR THE NEXT YEAR, AND THEN CONTEXT OF RESOURCES THAT WE HAVE AVAILABLE.
SO TAKING THE FIRST ONE, RESTRICTING ACCESS TO THE DATA, PREVENTING DATA MINING FOR MARKETING PURPOSES, WOULD ANYONE LIKE TO COMMENT ON THOSE TERMS OF REFERENCE?
MARILYN, DO YOU HAVE ANY COMMENTS ON THE FIRST TERMS OF REFERENCE IN THE AREA OF DATA MINING?
>>JEFF NEUMAN: THIS IS JEFF.
>>BRUCE TONKIN: GO AHEAD, JEFF.
>>JEFF NEUMAN: JUST ONE COMMENT ON THE SECOND PARAGRAPH.
SOME REGISTRIES ARE REQUIRED TO PROVIDE PORT-43 ACCESS, ESPECIALLY THE THICK REGISTRIES.
IF WE COULD ADD A RECOGNITION IN THE PURPOSE, THE PURPOSE OF THIS TASK FORCE IS TO DETERMINE WHAT CONTRACTUAL CHANGES, IF ANY, ARE REQUIRED TO ALLOW REGISTRARS AND REGISTEREES TO PROTECT DOMAIN NAME HOLDER.
SO JUST ADD THE WORD "REGISTEREES" IN THERE.
>>BRUCE TONKIN: OKAY.
WHERE IT SAYS ALLOW REGISTRARS, YOU WANT IT TO BE REGISTRARS AND REG REGISTEREES.
>>JEFF NEUMAN: EXACTLY.
>>BRUCE TONKIN: ANY OTHER COMMENTS ON THE FIRST ONE?
WHAT I'D LIKE TO DO IS TO FORMALLY, FOR THE COUNCIL, ACCEPT THAT AS TERMS OF REFERENCE.
IT'S NOT TERMS OF REFERENCE NECESSARILY FOR A TASK FORCE OR A WORKING GROUP, BUT JUST AS A DESCRIPTION OF THE PROBLEM AND THE TASK FORCES THAT NEED TO BE STUDIED TO SOLVE THAT PROBLEM.
SO IF I COULD PUT THAT TO A VOTE.
MARILYN.
>>MARILYN CADE: LET ME ASK A QUESTION.
>>BRUCE TONKIN: YEAH, GO AHEAD.
>>MARILYN CADE: BRUCE, MY QUESTION REALLY IS JUST TO SEEK THAT WRITTEN CLARIFICATION THAT THIS IS THE -- BECAUSE THE USE OF THE TERMS -- THE USE OF THE PHRASE "TERMS OF REFERENCE," WHICH WAS A VERY HELPFUL OPERATIONAL TERM DURING OUR WORK, I THINK NOW HAS OUTLIVED ITS USEFULNESS AND WE SHOULD CALL THIS SOMETHING ELSE.
BECAUSE "TERMS OF REFERENCE" IN OUR WORK PLAN HAS A DIFFERENT FOCUS.
SO IF WE COULD JUST MAKE THAT ONE MODIFICATION IN ALL THREE OF THEM, AND FIGURE OUT SOMETHING ELSE TO CALL IT, I -- I KNOW OUR INTENT, I THINK, IS --
>>BRUCE TONKIN: OKAY.
I'LL CALL IT DESCRIPTION OF WORK.
>>MARILYN CADE: FINE.
>>BRUCE TONKIN: HOW'S THAT?
FOR THE PURPOSES OF MOVING FORWARD.
OKAY.
ALL RIGHT.
I'D LIKE TO PUT THAT TO A VOTE, THEN.
WHAT I MIGHT DO IS, I'LL INITIALLY JUST ASK FOR THOSE FOR AND AGAINST.
IF I START FINDING THAT THERE'S A MIXTURE, THEN I'LL INDIVIDUALLY GO THROUGH THAT.
SO IF I FIRSTLY -- YEAH, GO AHEAD, AMADEU.
>>AMADEU ABRIL I ABRIL: BRUCE, I HAVE A SMALL, FORMAL AMENDMENT TO THE THREE TERMS OF REFERENCE AS A WHOLE.
WHEN IT SAYS "THE PARTICIPANTS," IT LEAVES THE CORRECT PARTICIPANTS, BUT ACCORDING TO THE PDP PROCEDURE IN THE BYLAWS, THE COUNCIL MAY ADD UP TO THREE EXPERTS ON TOP OF THAT.
>>BRUCE TONKIN: YEAH.
>>AMADEU ABRIL I ABRIL: AS I HAVE REQUESTED TO BE ONE OF THESE, I THINK WE SHOULD RESERVE THIS POSSIBILITY WHEN WE WILL REESTABLISH THE TASK FORCE.
>>BRUCE TONKIN: YES.
>>AMADEU ABRIL I ABRIL: PUT THAT JUST AS A NOTE HERE, NOT TO MAKE IT MANDATORY, BUT JUST TO ALLOW THIS POSSIBILITY.
>>BRUCE TONKIN: YES.
SO THAT -- UP TO THREE EXPERTS TO EACH OF THOSE.
IS THAT -- OKAY.
THAT'S A GOOD POINT.
OKAY.
CHUN, YES.
>>CHUN EUNG HWI: THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN.
I'D LIKE TO SUGGEST A FEW AMENDMENTS.
AT THE LAST PART OF THIS TERMS OF REFERENCE, TASK FORCES, MILESTONES.
THE FIRST ONE IS COLLECT REQUIREMENTS.
WE HOPE THESE WERE THE REQUIREMENTS THAT COULD BE CHANGED INTO "REQUESTS," BECAUSE WE THINK "REQUIREMENTS" SOUNDS TOO STRONG.
USUALLY THIS IS USED FOR INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY OR LAW ENFORCEMENT.
THEN EVEN IN THE CASE, "REQUIREMENTS" IS NOT ABSOLUTELY NEEDED. "REQUESTS" IS ENOUGH.
SO I THINK -- WE HOPE TO USE THE WORD "REQUESTS."
AND SUBSEQUENTLY, I WANT TO ADD ONE OTHER ITEM.
THIS KIND OF REQUEST SHOULD BE EVALUATED WITHIN COMMUNITIES.
SO EVALUATION OF THE REQUESTS OF LAW ENFORCEMENT AND INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY FOR THESE CONSTITUENCIES WITH THE PUBLIC POLICY AND DUE PROCESS, AND OTHER AGENCY CONSIDERATIONS.
SO WE WANT TO ADD THAT ADDITIONAL ITEM FOR THE TERMS OF REFERENCE.
>>BRUCE TONKIN: SO CAN I SUGGEST THE WORDING THEN BE "COLLECT AND EVALUATE REQUESTS"?
>>CHUN EUNG HWI: EVALUATION OF THE REQUESTS OF LAW ENFORCEMENT AND INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY FOR THESE CONSTITUENCIES, WITH PUBLIC POLICY AND DUE PROCESS AND OTHER AGENCIES AND CONSIDERATIONS.
>>BRUCE TONKIN: YEAH, I MEAN, I DON'T THINK WE'RE -- IF WE'RE JUST TALKING ABOUT THE TASKS FOR THE FIRST TASK FORCE, IT CURRENTLY READS COLLECTING REQUIREMENTS FROM NONMARKETING USERS, WHICH INCLUDES LAW ENFORCEMENT AND ANYONE ELSE, REALLY.
AND YOU SUGGESTED REMOVING IT FROM "REQUIREMENTS" TO THE TERM "REQUESTS."
IT'S PROBABLY JUST DIFFERENT TERMINOLOGY.
FROM AN ENGINEERING POINT OF VIEW, THEY'RE THE SAME THING.
BUT I GUESS WHAT YOU'RE TRYING TO SAY IS THAT THEY NEED TO BE EVALUATED, AND WE COLLECT THAT INTO SOME SUMMARY OF THAT.
MARILYN, YOU HAD A....
>>MARILYN CADE: I THINK AMADEU MAY WISH TO SPEAK AS WELL.
BUT I'D LIKE TO JUST MAKE A POINT ABOUT THIS.
PERHAPS WE COULD USE JUST A NEUTRAL PHRASE OF "COLLECT THE STATED NEEDS."
I THINK THIS -- I DON'T REALLY THINK THAT WE SHOULD BE, WHILE WE ARE DATA-GATHERING, MAKING A JUDGMENT ABOUT WHETHER THAT PARTICULAR GROUP THAT WE ARE COLLECTING STATED NEEDS FROM IS LEGITIMATE OR ILLEGITIMATE.
THAT IS NOT OUR TASK, AS I -- OUR TASK IS TO COLLECT.
I THINK THAT IN THE POLICY DEVELOPMENT PROCESS -- AND I WOULD -- I THINK WE SHOULD BE COLLECTING THE STATED NEEDS FROM DIFFERENT GROUPS.
>>BRUCE TONKIN: YES.
>>MARILYN CADE: SO I'M ASSUMING THAT WE WILL TALK TO A VERY WIDE NUMBER OF USERS, AND THAT THEN THERE WILL BE -- THERE WILL THEN BE CONFLICTS BETWEEN -- OR OVERLAP OR, YOU KNOW, DISAGREEMENT BETWEEN THE DIFFERENT NEEDS.
AND THAT WOULD BE THE TIME IN WHICH -- AND PERHAPS WHAT WE NEED TO DO IS TO NOT ONLY COLLECT THE REQUEST, BUT COLLECT SOME OF THE JUSTIFICATION OR THE EXPLANATION.
>>BRUCE TONKIN: ACTUALLY, THAT'S A GOOD WAY OF PUTTING IT, IS THE NEEDS AND THE JUSTIFICATION FOR THOSE.
>>MARILYN CADE: AND THEN LATER IN THE POLICY DEVELOPMENT PROCESS, I THINK WE WOULD THEN BE ADDRESSING WHAT CHUN IS SUGGESTING.
>>BRUCE TONKIN: THAT'S GREAT AND ACTUALLY COMING UP WITH A SOLUTION.
AND I THINK PAUL TWOMEY MADE THE POINT TO ME EARLIER TODAY, THEN WE WILL NEED TO BE ABLE TO FIND A PRAGMATIC SOLUTION.
WE WON'T BE ABLE TO MEET ALL THOSE NEEDS.
IT'S NOT AUTOMATIC THAT YOU STATE A NEED AND THAT IT WILL BE DEALT WITH.
IT'S BASICALLY WE'RE GOING TO TRY TO ACHIEVE A SOLUTION.
>>ELLEN SHANKMAN: I THINK THAT'S IMPORTANT.
BUT I ALSO THINK THAT WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO DO AT THE END OF THE DAY IS TO ASCERTAIN WHAT ARE THE KINDS OF THINGS THAT SHOULD ABSOLUTELY BE NECESSARY AS OPPOSED TO JUST MERELY VOLUNTARY.
SO I THINK JUSTIFYING OR LABEL SOMETHING A NEED VERSUS A REQUEST IS A GOOD IDEA.
>>BRUCE TONKIN: YES.
SO THE TERM THAT MARILYN USED WAS "NEEDS" AND "JUSTIFICATION" AS OPPOSED TO JUST A REQUEST, WHICH PERHAPS IS A LITTLE BIT MORE INFORMAL.
SO I'D REQUEST FULL SEARCHABILITY ON ALL FIELDS AS AN EXAMPLE.
>>ELLEN SHANKMAN: I AGREE.
>>BRUCE TONKIN: AND SO IT'S STATING THE NEEDS AND THE JUSTIFICATION FOR THAT NEED.
SO IT WOULD SAY, "COLLECT THE STATED NEEDS AND JUSTIFICATION FOR THOSE NEEDS FROM" -- ET CETERA.
IS THAT OKAY, CHUN?
>>CHUN EUNG HWI: OKAY.
I WITHDRAW MY ORIGINAL PROPOSAL.
>>BRUCE TONKIN: OKAY.
ANY OTHER COMMENTS?
OKAY.
ALL THOSE IN FAVOR OF ACCEPTING THE FIRST -- LET ME GET THE RIGHT WORD -- DESCRIPTION OF WORK, ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, SAY "AYE."
>>: AYE.
>>BRUCE TONKIN: ARE THERE ANY AGAINST?
ARE THERE ANY ABSTENTIONS?
OKAY.
THE SECOND TERMS OF REFERENCE IS PROBABLY THE ONE THAT'S ATTRACTED THE MOST ATTENTION AMONGST THE STEERING COMMITTEE.
AND THERE ARE SOME DIFFERENT VIEWS ON THIS TERMS OF REFERENCE.
THERE IS ONE VIEW THAT THIS TERMS OF REFERENCE SHOULD ONLY ADDRESS THE ISSUE OF WHETHER REGISTRANTS ARE PROPERLY INFORMED AT THE TIME OF REGISTRATION ON THE PURPOSE FOR THE DATA AND HOW THE DATA WILL BE MADE AVAILABLE TO OTHERS.
AND THERE'S OTHERS THAT BELIEVE THAT THAT'S THE FIRST STEP.
AND THEN WE NEED TO LOOK AT THE ISSUES OF WHAT DATA IS REQUIRED TO BE COLLECTED AND WHAT DATA IS REQUIRED TO BE DISPLAYED PUBLICLY.
THE FIRST ITEM IS SOMETHING THAT CAN PROBABLY BE DEALT WITH IN A RELATIVELY SHORT TIME FRAME.
THE SECOND ITEM IS REALLY ONE OF THE MAJOR QUESTIONS FOR WHOIS, WHICH IS, WHAT IS THE PURPOSE OF ALL THE ELEMENTS AND WHO SHOULD HAVE ACCESS TO ALL THOSE ELEMENTS.
SO THE TERMS OF REFERENCE AS THEY ARE CURRENTLY DRAFT- -- THE WORK -- DESCRIPTION OF WORK AS THEY ARE CURRENTLY DRAFTED IS BASICALLY SAYING THAT THE FIRST STEP IS TO EXAMINE THE CURRENT METHODS BY WHICH REGISTRARS AND THEIR RESELLERS INFORM REGISTRANTS OF THE PURPOSE FOR WHICH THE DATA IS COLLECTED AND HOW THAT DATA WILL BE RELEASED TO THE PUBLIC, AND THEN EXAMINE WHETHER ANY CHANGES, POLICY CHANGES, ARE NECESSARY TO IMPROVE HOW THIS INFORMATION IS PROVIDED TO REGISTRANTS.
SO I THINK THERE CERTAINLY SEEMS TO BE CONSENSUS WITHIN THE STEERING COMMITTEE ON THIS TOPIC.
THE SECOND TASK IS TO CONDUCT AN ANALYSIS OF THE EXISTING USES OF THE DATA ELEMENTS CURRENTLY CAPTURED AT REGISTRATION, DEVELOP A LIST OF THESE ELEMENTS THAT MUST BE COLLECTED TO ACHIEVE A BALANCE BETWEEN THE INTERESTS OF THOSE SEEKING GOOD CONTACTABILITY AND THOSE ALSO SEEKING PRIVACY PROTECTION.
AND CERTAINLY MUCH OF THE DISCUSSION IN THE WORKSHOP TODAY WAS ON THIS ISSUE.
THE INTENT IS TO DETERMINE WHETHER ALL THE DATA ELEMENTS NOW COLLECTED ARE NECESSARY AND DETERMINE WHICH ELEMENTS CAN BE ACQUIRED ACCURATELY AT LOW COST AND WHETHER ANY OF THE CURRENT ELEMENTS SHOULD BE MADE VOLUNTARY, WHETHER ANY DIFFERENT ELEMENTS SHOULD BE ADDED OR SUBSTITUTED TO IMPROVE THE BALANCE BETWEEN CONTACTABILITY AND PRIVACY, AND HOW THE DATA MAY BE ACQUIRED IN COMPLIANCE WITH PRIVACY, SECURITY, AND STABILITY ISSUES.
THE NEXT AREA IS LOOKING AT HOW REGISTRANTS CAN PRESENTLY MAINTAIN ANONYMITY AND ASSESS WHETHER THOSE CURRENT METHODS ARE ADEQUATE, AND THEN DOCUMENT EXAMPLES OF EXISTING PRIVACY LAWS THAT OCCUR IN SOME COUNTRIES TO GIVE PERSPECTIVE, AND THEN DECIDE WHAT OPTIONS, IF ANY, SHOULD BE GIVEN TO REGISTRANTS TO REMOVE SOME DATA FROM PUBLIC ACCESS.
AND, FINALLY, REEXAMINE THE METHODS BY WHICH REGISTRARS INFORM THEIR CUSTOMERS OF THE USE OF THE CONTACT DATA AND THE BEST WAY OF DISPLAYING THAT.
THAT IS A LARGE AMOUNT OF WORK IN THIS DESCRIPTION OF WORK, BUT IT IS PROBABLY ONE OF THE CORE CONTROVERSIAL ISSUES BEFORE THE GNSO.
SO I INVITE DISCUSSION ON THIS DESCRIPTION OF WORK.
ELLEN, GO AHEAD.
>>ELLEN SHANKMAN: I'D FIRST LIKE TO ADDRESS, IF I MAY, THE -- HOW THIS EVEN GOT ON THE LIST SO THAT I CAN CLARIFY A POSITION.
WE WERE ASKED IN TRYING TO FIGURE OUT AS A PRAGMATIC WAY OF DEALING WITH MORE THAN 20 ISSUES ON THE LIST HOW WE WOULD RANK WHICH WERE THE ONES TO LOOK AT, BECAUSE WE ALL AGREED THAT IT WAS OVERWHELMING TO LOOK AT EVERYTHING, AND THEREFORE EACH OF THE CONSTITUENCIES WAS ASKED TO RANK THEIR TOP FIVE FAVORITES, IF YOU WILL, THAT SHOULD -- THAT SHOULD BE EXAMINED.
IT'S OUR OPINION THAT THIS ELEMENT INCLUDES THINGS THAT DID NOT -- THAT WERE NOT COVERED BY THE TOP FIVE RANKED BY ALL THE CONSTITUENCIES.
I GUESS, TO CLARIFY, ALL OF THE CONSTITUENCIES WERE ASKED TO RANK THEIR TOP FIVE.
AFTER THAT COUNT WAS DONE WHAT WERE THE TOP FIVE OF EVERYBODY'S VOTES.
AND WE UNDERSTOOD THAT THOSE WOULD BE THE TOPICS.
THIS INTRODUCES ADDITIONAL TOPICS THAT WERE NOT PART OF THE RANKINGS OR WERE NOT LIMITED TO THAT, AND WE OBJECT TO THE FACT THAT IF WE HAD UNDERSTOOD OR -- IF WE HAD UNDERSTOOD THAT WOULD BE OPEN FOR DISCUSSION FOR ADDITIONAL TOPICS BESIDES LIMITATION OF THE FIVE, THAT WE WOULD HAVE COMMENTED VERY SPECIFICALLY ABOUT THAT.
AS TO THE SUBSTANCE OF THE ADDITIONAL DISCUSSION AND WHETHER THAT'S A PATH WE SHOULD BE GOING DOWN OR NOT, I LEAVE THAT TO THE COMMENTS THAT WERE MADE DURING THE WHOIS STEERING COMMITTEE.
>>BRUCE TONKIN: THANK YOU, ELLEN.
WOULD ANYONE ELSE LIKE TO SPEAK TO THIS TOPIC?
KEN STUBBS.
>>KEN STUBBS: YEAH.
MY ONLY CONCERN IS, I'D HATE TO MOVE FORWARD IN A SITUATION WHERE CONSTITUENTS HERE OR ANY GROUP FELT LIKE IT MIGHT HAVE BEEN INADVERTENTLY SANDBAGGED, TO USE THE TERM, AND I THINK WE NEED TO GET SOME CLARIFICATION AS TO HOW THIS IS GOING TO BE DEALT WITH IN -- ON THIS SPECIFIC ISSUE.
>>BRUCE TONKIN: OKAY.
HOW WE DEAL WITH THAT QUESTION OR --
>>KEN STUBBS: YEAH.
I'M ONLY CONCERNED THAT I THINK -- THERE APPEARS TO BE -- THERE HAS TO BE SOME SORT OF A COMMUNICATIONS ISSUE HERE IF THAT'S THE CASE.
BECAUSE I WOULD ASSUME THAT MEMBERS OF THE IP CONSTITUENCY WERE INVOLVED IN DEVELOPING THESE TERMS OF REFERENCE, OR WORK -- WHATEVER WE'RE CALLING IT NOW.
>>BRUCE TONKIN: YES, THAT IS CORRECT.
>>KEN STUBBS: AND THE -- IF WE'RE GETTING TO A POINT IN TIME NOW WHERE THE PEOPLE WHO WERE PARTICIPATING IN THE PROCESS THINK THAT THERE'S SOME SORT OF ISSUE HERE THAT EITHER THERE IS A MISCOMMUNICATION OR A CLARIFICATION STATED, WE HAVE TO DEAL WITH IT.
>>BRUCE TONKIN: OKAY.
I GUESS, YEAH, I THINK WHAT YOU'RE HIGHLIGHTING IS THAT THERE IS QUESTION OF WHETHER WE'VE CHANGED THE PROCESS ALONG THE WAY.
IS THAT THE QUESTION YOU'RE ASKING?
>>KEN STUBBS: NO.
I GUESS WHAT I'M SAYING IS THAT ELLEN'S INDICATING THAT MEMBERS OF THE CONSTITUENCY, AND MOST UNDOUBTEDLY PEOPLE WHO WERE INVOLVED IN THE PROCESS ONE WAY OR THE OTHER, WERE NOT UNDER THE -- WERE UNDER SOME SORT OF UNDERSTANDING THAT THE ITEMS WOULD ONLY BE -- INCLUDE THOSE SPECIFICALLY IDENTIFIED IN THE REQUEST THAT WAS MADE OF THE CONSTITUENCIES FOR THEIR LIST.
SO THAT -- THAT'S --
>>BRUCE TONKIN: YEAH.
I THINK -- MY PERSPECTIVE AS A CHAIR IS THAT THE WHOIS STEERING GROUP REQUESTED THE CONSTITUENCIES TO RANK THEIR TOP FIVE AS A METHOD OF PRIORITIZATION.
THERE WAS A DISCUSSION ON THAT COMMITTEE.
THERE WAS AN OPPOSING VIEW, WHICH WAS PRESENTED BY A MEMBER FROM THE INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY CONSTITUENCY, STEVE METALITZ, THAT HE DID NOT BELIEVE THAT THIS SHOULD BE DISCUSSED -- THAT ANYTHING BEYOND WHAT WAS RANKED IN THE TOP FIVE COLLECTIVELY SHOULD BE CONSIDERED IN THIS CURRENT POLICY PROCESS.
SO THAT WAS A VIEW HE HAD EXPRESSED.
THERE WERE OTHERS THAT VIEWED THAT THE -- OTHERS OF MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE FELT THAT THE TOP FIVE ISSUES WERE A GUIDE THAT ALLOWED US TO STRUCTURE THE POLICY DEVELOPMENT WORK.
THE ISSUES IN TASK FORCE 2 WERE IDENTIFIED BY TWO OF THE CONSTITUENCIES AS ONE OF THEIR TOP FIVE. BUT WHEN VIEWED COLLECTIVELY, IT DID NOT -- ALL THOSE ISSUES WERE NOT IN THE TOP FIVE.
SO I GUESS IT'S REALLY A QUESTION OF WHETHER THE COMMITTEE WAS JUSTIFIED IN GOING BEYOND ISSUES THAT WERE IDENTIFIED IN THE TOP FIVE, AND I THINK THAT MY SENSE IS THAT MOST OF THE COMMITTEE WERE COMFORTABLE WITH THE TERMS OF REFERENCE FOR TASK FORCE 2 BEYOND THAT. BUT THERE WAS CERTAINLY DIFFERENT VIEWS.
GO AHEAD, MARILYN.
>>MARILYN CADE: I SHOULD JUST GO ON THE RECORD AS STATING THAT WE DID EXPRESS CONCERN AS WELL, BECAUSE OUR UNDERSTANDING WAS THE REASON WE TOOK THE TROUBLE TO GO TO OUR CONSTITUENCIES TO SEEK VALIDATION OF THE STRAW POLL WE HAD TAKEN WAS TO ENSURE THAT WE DID A PRIORITIZATION.
HAVING SAID THAT, I -- AND I HAVE CONTRIBUTED TO TRYING TO MAKE CHANGES IN THE TERMS OF REFERENCE. HAVING SAID THAT, I WOULD MAKE JUST ANOTHER POINT; THAT I BELIEVE THE REPRESENTATIVE OF THE IPC MADE, AND THAT WAS IF WE WERE TO HAVE UNDERSTOOD THAT THE SEEKING OF THE PRIORITIZATION HAD NO REAL BEARING OR NO BINDING, THEN WE WOULD HAVE PROBABLY PARTICIPATED DIFFERENTLY.
SO THERE MAY HAVE BEEN A DIFFERENCE IN OUR PARTICIPATION BASED ON WHAT WE UNDERSTOOD THE PROCESS TO BE.
HAVING SAID THAT, I WANT TO BE AS POSITIVE AS POSSIBLE ABOUT FINDING A PATH FORWARD THAT ALLOWS PRODUCTIVE WORK IN THE AREA OF WHOIS IN THE CONTEXT OF THE VAST AMOUNT OF WORK THAT WE HAVE BEFORE US IN OTHER AREAS AS WELL.
SO AT SOME POINT, BEFORE WE MAKE DECISIONS ABOUT PRIORITIZATION, I REALLY THINK WE MUST STOP AND, AS A COUNCIL, STOP FRANKLY, CANDIDLY AND REALISTICALLY ABOUT THE AMOUNT OF OTHER TOPICS WE HAVE BEFORE US AND THINK ABOUT PRIORITIZATION.
>>MILTON MUELLER: MILTON WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK.
>>BRUCE TONKIN: I THINK ANY COMMENT I WOULD MAKE, I THINK IT'S INCORRECT TO CHARACTERIZE THAT THE TOP FIVE ISSUES WEREN'T TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT, AND IN FACT, THE TOP FIVE HAVE. IS THAT WHAT YOU'RE SAYING, MARILYN.
>>MARILYN CADE: NO, SORRY. I WASN'T SAYING THAT THEY WEREN'T TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT. I WAS SAYING THAT WE DID NOT, IN THE BC, UNDERSTAND THAT THEY WOULD NOT BE THE LIMIT.
>>BRUCE TONKIN: THE LIMIT. I THINK THAT'S THE ISSUE, YEAH.
>>ELLEN SHANKMAN: THAT'S CORRECT WITH THE IPC AS WELL. AND I COULD SAY WE WOULD HAVE DEALT WITH IT DIFFERENTLY.
>>BRUCE TONKIN: OKAY. THAT'S FAIR.
PHILIP.
>>MILTON MUELLER: HOLD ON. HELLO.
>>PHILIP SHEPPARD: I THINK I'M COMFORTABLE WITH THE PROCESS WE'RE GOING THROUGH BECAUSE WE ARE TALKING ABOUT AN ISSUE --
>>>: MILTON MUELLER WANTS TO SPEAK.
>>BRUCE TONKIN: I'LL PUT MILTON ON THE LIST NEXT. CARRY ON, PHILIP.
>>PHILIP SHEPPARD: I THINK I'M COMFORTABLE WITH THE PROCESS WE'RE GOING THROUGH BECAUSE AT THE MOMENT WE'RE TRYING TO DISCUSS THE DESCRIPTION OF ISSUES. WE HAVE YET TO GO ON TO THE PRIORITIZATION OF THESE THREE TASKS IN FRONT OF US AND THE WAY WE ADDRESS THOSE.
SO I THINK IT MAY BE USEFUL IF WE FINISH OFF ON THESE THREE IN TERMS OF DESCRIPTIVES AND THEN PERHAPS HAVE A DEBATE FOLLOWING THAT.
I JUST HAVE A SUBSTANTIVE COMMENT ABOUT THE TASK FORCE 2.
UNDER ITEM 1, AFTER LOOKING AT THE INFORMATION, MEANS OF COMMUNICATING INFORMATION TO REGISTRANTS, THERE'S AN EXAMINATION OF WHETHER POLICY CHANGES ARE NEEDED, AND THERE'S A REPETITION OF THAT UNDER ITEM 4 IN LIGHT OF THE LEARNINGS OF 2 AND 3.
WAS THAT INTENDED TO HAVE A -- AN EXAMINATION EVEN AFTER 1 OR IS IT SUFFICIENT IF THAT'S SIMPLY A NOTING OF CURRENT METHODS AND THEN THE FINAL -- AND THEN ITEM 4 KICKS IN?
>>BRUCE TONKIN: I THINK THE INTENT THERE WAS THAT ITEM 1 COULD BE DEALT WITH IN A FAIRLY SHORT TIME FRAME, AND COULD MAKE RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE BOARD ON THAT PARTICULAR TOPIC. BUT THAT ITEM 2 AND 3 COULD TAKE A SUBSTANTIALLY LONGER PERIOD OF TIME, AND THEN AT THE COMPLETION OF THAT WORK IT WOULD BE APPROPRIATE TO REEXAMINE WHETHER THE METHODS IN 1 ARE APPROPRIATE.
SO 1 IS REALLY DEALING WITH THE CURRENT STATUS QUO. IN OTHER WORDS, IT'S NOT CHANGING ANYTHING TO DO WITH DATA. 2 AND 3, REEXAMINING THE STATUS QUO TO DECIDE WHETHER THE DATA NEEDS TO CHANGE IN SOME WAY.
AND THEN ITEM 4 IS SAYING MAYBE THAT IF THERE ARE CHANGES MADE IN 2 AND 3, WE MIGHT NEED TO CHANGE 1. SO IT'S MORE OF A SORT OF TIMING ISSUE.
>>PHILIP SHEPPARD: IT THEREFORE WILL BE INDICATING SHORT-TERM ACHIEVABLES IN SUCH A PROJECT, I WOULD BE FULLY IN FAVOR OF THAT.
>>BRUCE TONKIN: THE INTENT WAS TO TRY TO STRUCTURE THIS IN THINGS THAT ONE WAS DEALING WITH THE HIGHEST PRIORITY ISSUE, WHICH WAS NUMBER 1, AND 2 AND 3 WERE LOWER PRIORITY. AND AS OTHERS HAVE POINTED OUT, THEY DIDN'T REACH THE TOP FIVE WHEN CONSIDERED BY ALL THE CONSTITUENCIES TOGETHER, BUT CERTAINLY THEY WERE IN THE TOP FIVE OF TWO OF THE CONSTITUENCIES.
MILTON MUELLER, GO AHEAD.
>>MILTON MUELLER: CAN YOU HEAR ME?
>>>: NO.
>>MILTON MUELLER: CAN YOU HEAR ME?
>>>: BARELY, MILTON.
>>MILTON MUELLER: I'M FINDING IT VERY DIFFICULT TO PARTICIPATE IN THIS TELECONFERENCE. I DON'T KNOW WHETHER YOU CAN HEAR ME. WHEN I ASK TO BE RECOGNIZED, NOBODY RESPONDS.
BUT I WOULD LIKE TO ADDRESS THIS ISSUE THAT KEN STUBBS RAISED.
>>BRUCE TONKIN: YEAH, WE CAN HEAR YOU NOW, SO PLEASE GO AHEAD, MILTON.
ALL RIGHT.
>>MILTON MUELLER: ACTUALLY THE REPRESENTATIVE OF THE WHOIS STEERING COMMITTEE MADE SOME GOOD COMMENTS AT THE LAST MEETING AND THAT IS WE CANNOT UTILIZE THE STRAW POLLS TO BE MECHANISMS BY WHICH ONE CONSTITUENCY OR ONE GROUP OF CONSTITUENCIES IS PERMITTED TO BLOCK FROM CONSIDERATION ISSUES THAT WE ALL KNOW MUST BE CONSIDERED.
AND REALLY, THAT'S WHAT'S GOING ON HERE. THIS IS A -- PURELY A PROCEDURAL MOVE. IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH A MISUNDERSTANDING. IT'S SIMPLY THAT CERTAIN CONSTITUENCIES DON'T EVEN WANT TO CONSIDER CERTAIN ISSUES; NAMELY, PRIVACY.
NOW, IN THE FIRST ROUND OF WHOIS, WE WERE TOLD THAT PRIVACY ISSUES SHOULD BE SET ASIDE UNTIL WE DEALT WITH THE OTHER ISSUES, SO WE WERE TOLD THAT THIS WAS A PRIORITIZATION ISSUE BACK THEN.
NOW WE'RE BEING TOLD THAT PRIVACY ISSUES ARE GOING TO BE SHUNTED AWAY AGAIN, AND IT'S VERY CLEAR TO ME THAT THERE ARE JUST CONSTITUENCIES OUT THERE THAT DON'T WANT TO DEAL WITH THE FUNDAMENTAL PRIVACY ISSUES.
AND THIS IS SIMPLY AN UNACCEPTABLE WAY FOR THE GNSO TO GO.
THE CALL TO DEAL WITH PRIVACY AND DATA COLLECTION ISSUES IS IN THE PRESIDENT'S REPORT. WE'VE HAD DISCUSSIONS FROM GOVERNMENTS ABOUT THIS.
THESE ISSUES SIMPLY HAVE TO BE DEALT WITH. THE FACT THAT THEY DIDN'T GET A CERTAIN NUMBER OF VOTES IN AN INITIAL PRIORITIZATION PROCESS REALLY DOESN'T MEAN ANYTHING. WHAT THAT PRIORITIZATION PROCESS WAS DOING WAS SIMPLY GETTING THE SENSE OF WHAT ISSUES MATTERED MOST TO VARIOUS CONSTITUENCIES.
WE CAN PREDICT PRETTY EASILY WHICH CONSTITUENCIES CARE ABOUT WHICH ISSUES. THE IDEA THAT WE SHOULDN'T DEAL WITH CERTAIN ISSUES AT ALL SIMPLY BECAUSE CERTAIN CONSTITUENCIES ARE HAPPY WITH THE WAY THINGS ARE, I JUST DON'T THINK THAT'S ACCEPTABLE.
SO WE REALLY HAVE TO STOP PLAYING GAMES ABOUT TASK FORCE 2. THESE ARE ALL ISSUES THAT MUST BE DEALT WITH. THEY'RE CENTRAL TO WHOIS. THEY'RE CENTRAL TO THE LEGALITY OF ICANN. THEY'RE CENTRAL TO THE RIGHTS OF OUR DOMAIN NAME REGISTRANTS WHO ARE NOT REPRESENTED ON THIS COUNCIL.
SO I WOULD JUST -- I'M SUPPORTIVE OF TASK FORCE 2 AS IT STANDS, AND I THINK WE SHOULD JUST PASS IT. AND ANY ATTEMPT TO ARGUE THAT WE DON'T HAVE THE RESOURCES TO DEAL WITH IT, WE'RE GOING TO REJECT THAT ALSO.
THANK YOU.
>>BRUCE TONKIN: THANK YOU, MILTON.
KEN.
>>KEN STUBBS: I HAVE TO APOLOGIZE, MILTON, BECAUSE I DIDN'T HEAR THE EARLY PART OF YOUR SPEECH. THEY'VE GOT THE VOLUME ADJUSTED NOW AND I CAN HEAR CLEARLY, BUT I HOPE YOU DON'T THINK I IMPLIED BY ANYTHING I SAID THAT I DON'T FEEL THE PRIVACY ISSUES ARE SOMETHING THAT ARE IMPORTANT AND HAVE TO BE DEALT WITH IN THE ISSUE, IN THIS PROCESS.
>>ELLEN SHANKMAN: MILTON, WE'RE ALSO NOT SHYING AWAY FROM THE PRIVACY ISSUES WITH THE IPC BUT I DO TAKE ISSUE WITH ANYTHING THAT SAID THAT WE MISUNDERSTOOD THE PROCESS, THAT WE'RE BEING DISINGENUOUS ABOUT IT IN ORDER TO SANDBAG THE PRIVACY ISSUES ASIDE. THAT'S NOT CORRECT.
BUT WHAT WE UNDERSTOOD THE PRIORITIZATION TO BE WAS TO SAY WHICH WERE THE ISSUES WHICH WERE MOST IMPORTANT TO EACH CONSTITUENCY. AND THE FACT THAT EVEN THOUGH YOU CAN READ IN ADVANCE OR ANTICIPATE WHICH ISSUES MIGHT BE MORE IMPORTANT TO SOME CONSTITUENCIES THAN OTHERS IS EXACTLY THE REASON WE HAVE A COUNCIL TO SIT AND DECIDE HOW TO PRIORITIZE THEM AND NOT DECIDE THAT ONE PARTICULAR CONSTITUENCY'S DECISION ABOUT WHAT'S THE MOST IMPORTANT ISSUE IS THE ONE THAT THEN HAS TO CONTROL.
THAT HAVING BEEN SAID, THE IPC IS DEFINITELY VERY SUPPORTIVE OF INVESTIGATING MORE WHAT'S GOING ON WITH WHOIS BECAUSE WE ARE NOT SATISFIED WITH WHAT'S GOING ON WITH THE WHOIS ISSUE.
AND SO TO CHARACTERIZE ALL OF THAT TOGETHER I THINK IS A MISSTATEMENT OF OUR POSITION.
>>JEFF NEUMAN: THIS IS JEFF.
>>BRUCE TONKIN: JEFF NEUMAN, YES, GO AHEAD.
>>JEFF NEUMAN: I JUST WANT TO STAND BEHIND MILTON ON THIS ONE. AND I KNOW A FEW MONTHS AGO -- ACTUALLY, IN THE MONTREAL MEETING, IT COULD HAVE BEEN THE MEETING BEFORE THAT IN RIO WHERE WE TALKED ABOUT PRIVACY AND FOR THE REGISTRY CONSTITUENCY THAT WAS ONE OF THE TOP IF NOT THE TOP ISSUE ON THE WHOIS. SO I DO WANT TO SAY THAT IN TERMS OF OUR PRIORITY, IT IS, AGAIN, THE TOP OR NEXT TO THE TOP ISSUE. AND WE WOULD LIKE TO SEE THAT ADDRESSED.
IN FACT, WE SUPPORTED THE MOTION TO HOLD OFF ON ANY OTHER CHANGES TO ANY OTHER ASPECT OF WHOIS BEFORE PRIVACY WAS ADDRESSED.
>>THOMAS ROESSLER: BRUCE?
>>BRUCE TONKIN: YES, GO AHEAD, THOMAS.
>>THOMAS ROESSLER: I WOULD MAKE SEVERAL OBSERVATIONS. FIRST ONE IS THE HEADLINE UNDER WHOSE WORK THE WHOIS STEERING COMMITTEE PROCEEDED AND STARTED AND YOU CAN STILL SEE IT ON THE GNSO WEB SITE, I BELIEVE, WAS PRIVACY.
I FIND IT AMAZING THAT WE ARE NOW APPROACHING A SITUATION ON WHICH SOME CONSTITUENCIES SEEM TO SUGGEST THAT CORE PRIVACY QUESTIONS SHOULD BE DEFERRED UNTIL WHATEVER TIME FRAME AND, INSTEAD, THE GNSO SHOULD MOVE FORWARD, FOR INSTANCE, WITH (INAUDIBLE) ENFORCEMENT. THAT IS CLOSE TO BEING ABSURD.
THAT SAID, I WOULD LIKE TO CALL YOUR ATTENTION TO THE NOTE FROM VITTORIO BERTOLA THAT HE HAS FORWARDED TO THE COUNCIL SOME DAYS AGO. THAT NOTICE INFORMS, BRIEFS OF THE AT-LARGE ADVISORY COMMITTEE FORMAL REQUEST THAT THE GNSO -- THAT THE GNSO TAKE UP FOR POLICY MAKING A REVIEW OF DATA ELEMENTS COLLECTED AND DISPLAYED IN THE WHOIS SERVICE. WE WOULD BE DELIGHTED TO SEE THAT THIS REQUEST BECOMES MOOT BY THE COUNCIL INITIATING WORK ON WHAT WE CALL WORK DESCRIPTION 2 TODAY.
IF THAT WOULD NOT BE THE CASE, I WOULD LIKE TO REMIND YOU OF THE FACT THAT -- THE FACT THAT THE AT-LARGE ADVISORY COMMITTEE WILL THEN TRANSMIT THIS REQUEST TO THE ICANN SECRETARY TO INITIATE THE FIRST STEPS OF THE POLICY DEVELOPMENT PROCESS ACCORDING TO ANNEX A-1, I BELIEVE IT IS, SUBSECTION B. THANK YOU.
>>BRUCE TONKIN: THANK YOU, THOMAS.
ANYONE ELSE LIKE TO SPEAK ON THIS ISSUE?
OKAY. WHAT I PROPOSE, MY VIEW AT THIS STAGE IS THAT THE STEERING COMMITTEE WAS ASKED TO PRODUCE TERMS OF REFERENCE WHICH WE'RE NOW CALLING DESCRIPTIONS OF WORK. THAT WAS ITS TASK. I THINK IT HAS COMPLETED THAT TASK.
THE METHOD IT USED -- AND I THINK WE HAVE AN ISSUE WITH THE METHOD, AND THAT WAS THAT WE ASKED FOR THE TOP FIVE AND THEN WE DIDN'T JUST LIMIT TO THE TOP FIVE; THAT WE WENT SLIGHTLY BEYOND THAT TO TRY TO ENCOMPASS THE MAJOR ISSUES DISCUSSED IN THE COMMUNITY.
THAT'S WHAT'S HAPPENED, AND I THINK THE NEXT TIME WE GO THROUGH A -- AND THIS PRIORITIZATION WAS REALLY ONLY ATTEMPTED THIS WAY FOR THE FIRST TIME, SO I GUESS WE'RE LEARNING AS WE GO, AND PERHAPS NEXT TIME WE GO THROUGH THAT PROCESS WE NEED TO CLARIFY WHAT THE RESULTS OF THAT PROCESS WILL BE.
NOW THAT WE'VE ACTUALLY GOT TO THIS POINT AND WE DO HAVE A DESCRIPTION OF WORK, WHAT I PROPOSE IS THAT WE VOTE ON THIS DESCRIPTION OF WORK THAT WE HAVE BEFORE US, AND THOSE THAT BELIEVE THAT THE DESCRIPTION'S INAPPROPRIATE SHOULD VOTE AGAINST.
SO HERE WE GO.
SO I'LL START.
YES, GO AHEAD, MARILYN. PLEASE USE THE MIKES.
>>MARILYN CADE: MY QUESTION IS ACTUALLY ABOUT THE PHRASE UNDERNEATH "TASK" AND "MILESTONES," WHICH READS THIS TASK FORCE WOULD BEGIN AT THE SAME TIME AS THE OTHER ONE AND WOULD EXECUTE ITS DUTIES IN THE FOLLOWING ORDER." I WOULD LIKE TO PROPOSE A CHANGE IN THAT SAYING THE TASK FORCE -- I'M NOT SURE THAT SENTENCE -- RIGHT UNDERNEATH TASK AND MILESTONES.
>>BRUCE TONKIN: I SEE. IT'S PROBABLY ALL TEXT.
>>MARILYN CADE: I THINK IT'S TOO PRESCRIPTIVE REGARDLESS OF WHETHER THIS IS APPROVED OR IN THE APPROVED. SO I WOULD SUGGEST WE STRIKE THAT. I THINK THE NUMBERING TAKES CARE OF THE --
>>BRUCE TONKIN: YES, I WOULD AGREE TO THAT.
I GUESS WHAT I SHOULD DO AT THIS POINT IS ACTUALLY DISCUSS THE CONTENT OF THE -- THIS PARTICULAR WORK FORCE, WHICH MARILYN IS NOW ADDRESSING.
WOULD OTHERS LIKE TO COMMENT ON THE CONTENT OF THIS DESCRIPTION OF WORK? JORDYN.
>>JORDYN BUCHANAN: THIS ACTUALLY MAY BE MORE A QUESTION THAN A COMMENT, BUT I WONDER IF THE -- THERE'S NO DISCUSSION HERE OF DIFFERENTIATED ACCESS, WHICH I KNOW WAS A SEPARATE TOPIC WHICH WAS HANDLED BY THE STEERING GROUP, AND I GUESS MY QUESTION IS, IS THE ASSUMPTION HERE THAT DATA EITHER IS DISPLAYED TO EVERYONE IN THE PUBLIC OR NO ONE AT ALL AND THERE'S NO ABILITY TO ACCESS THAT DATA?
>>BRUCE TONKIN: I DON'T BELIEVE THAT'S AN ASSUMPTION. I THINK THAT'S ONE OF THE THINGS THAT WOULD BE CONSIDERED, YES.
>>JORDYN BUCHANAN: IF THAT'S THE CASE, I THINK THAT PROBABLY ISN'T VERY CLEAR FROM THE CURRENT DESCRIPTION OF THE GOALS AND OBJECTIVES AND WHAT'S IN SCOPE AND OUT OF SCOPE. IT'S NOT EXPLICITLY LISTED AS OUT OF SCOPE BUT IT'S NOT VERY CLEARLY DESCRIBED AS BEING IN SCOPE EITHER.
>>BRUCE TONKIN: OKAY. SO YOU'D LIKE A SENTENCE THERE THAT INDICATES THAT SOME OF THE DATA MAY BE DISPLAYED DIFFERENTLY TO DIFFERENT GROUPS; IS THAT CORRECT?
>>JORDYN BUCHANAN: YEAH, THAT'S EXACTLY CORRECT.
>>BRUCE TONKIN: OKAY. SO IN SECTION 2, DEVELOPING A LIST OF DATA (INAUDIBLE) ALL THE DATA ELEMENTS ARE NECESSARY. DETERMINE WHICH CAN BE ACQUIRED.
OKAY. THE SECOND ONE I THINK IS DEALING WITH THE COLLECTION OF DATA.
>>JORDYN BUCHANAN: I'D SUGGEST MAYBE IT WOULD EVEN BE A SEPARATE BULLET, A SEPARATE POINT, TO TAKE A NEW NUMBER 4 MAYBE INDICATING -- WELL, MAYBE NOT.
>>PHILIP SHEPPARD: BRUCE, ISN'T THIS COVERED BY THE CURRENT AND FORESEEABLE NEEDS OF THE COMMUNITY, THE PHRASE IN THE MIDDLE OF 2?
>>BRUCE TONKIN: I THINK WHAT JORDYN IS DISTINGUISHING IS THAT THAT'S -- THE FOCUS THERE IS MAINLY ABOUT THE -- WHICH DATA ELEMENTS ARE REQUIRED TO BE COLLECTED FOR THE VARIOUS PURPOSES AND DETERMINE WHETHER THEY'RE ALL NECESSARY. IT DOESN'T ACTUALLY INCLUDE A DISCUSSION ABOUT HOW THINGS SHOULD BE DISPLAYED.
>>JORDYN BUCHANAN: MY CONCERN, PHILIP, IS THAT THERE'S LEGITIMATE USES OUT THERE. THERE MAY BE DATA THAT WE WOULDN'T WANT TO SHOW TO EVERYONE IN THE PUBLIC BUT, IN SOME INSTANCES, LAW ENFORCEMENT, IP, AND SO ON, WHERE WE DO WANT TO MAKE THAT DATA AVAILABLE. SO RATHER THAN SAYING YES, THIS INFORMATION IS ALWAYS AVAILABLE TO EVERYONE OR NO, IT'S NOT AVAILABLE TO ANYONE, THAT WE DO WANT TO COLLECT IT AND MAKE IT AVAILABLE ON A LIMITED BASIS AND THAT DOESN'T SEEM TO BE ENCOMPASSED HERE.
>>BRUCE TONKIN: JUST ONE SECOND.
YEAH, IF I COULD JUST POINT OUT UNDER THE SECTION OF OUT OF SCOPE IN THIS TASK FORCE, ONE OF THE THINGS WE'VE ATTEMPTED TO DO IS TRY AND FAIRLY NARROWLY DEFINE THESE TASK FORCES OR THESE DESCRIPTIONS, AND THIS ONE HAS SAID THAT THE TASK FORCE SHOULD NOT EXAMINE THE MECHANISM AVAILABLE FOR ANONYMOUS PUBLIC ACCESS AND THAT'S THE TOPIC OF THE FIRST DESCRIPTION OF WORK. THE TASK FORCE SHOULD NOT EXAMINE MECHANISM FOR LAW ENFORCEMENT ACCESS, BECAUSE THIS IS GENERALLY SUBJECT TO LOCAL RULES, AND MAYBE THE SUBJECT OF A FUTURE TASK FORCE.
SO ONE APPROACH IS TO SAY THAT THAT PARTICULAR TOPIC, IF WE WANTED TO DIFFERENTIATE WHO WE DISPLAY THE INFORMATION TO, WE COULD EITHER DEAL WITH THAT AS A SEPARATE WORK ITEM IN THE FUTURE OR ARE YOU SUGGESTING WE ADD THAT AS A WORK ITEM?
>>JORDYN BUCHANAN: I WOULD GUESS THAT IT WOULD BE VERY DIFFICULT TO SOLVE THIS PARTICULAR PROBLEM WITHOUT TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION THAT SOME OF THE DATA IS PROBABLY USEFUL TO -- MORE USEFUL TO CERTAIN TYPES OF ENTITIES THAN IT IS TO THE PUBLIC AT LARGE.
>>BRUCE TONKIN: YEAH, MARILYN.
>>MARILYN CADE: BRUCE, I'M NOT GOING TO SPEAK TO ANY SUPPORT OF ANY OF THESE IDEAS AT THIS POINT. I'M JUST GOING TO MAKE TWO STATEMENTS.
I THINK WHAT -- IF I'M CLEAR ON UNDERSTANDING YOU, JORDYN, YOU'RE SPECIFICALLY DISCUSSING THE SEPARATE TOPIC OF DISPLAY OF DATA. AND THEN THERE WOULD BE THE QUESTION OF WHICH DATA IS DISPLAYED, BECAUSE 2 IS FOCUSED ON COLLECTION OF DATA.
>>BRUCE TONKIN: THAT'S CORRECT, YEAH.
>>MARILYN CADE: SO IF WE WERE TO ASSUME MUCH -- HYPOTHETICALLY, MUCH DATA MAY BE COLLECTED BUT NOT ALL DATA WOULD BE DISPLAYED, THEN ONE APPROACH WOULD BE TO CREATE A NEW 3 OR A 2B AND THINK ABOUT THE DISPLAY TOPIC.
WOULD THAT BE -- AGAIN --
>>BRUCE TONKIN: YEAH.
>>MARILYN CADE: -- I'M NOT SAYING I'M SUPPORTING THIS. I'M MERELY TRYING TO FIND --
>>BRUCE TONKIN: I THINK ITEM 3 IS ATTEMPTING TO DEAL WITH THAT TOPIC OF THE DISPLAY OF DATA FROM THE POINT OF VIEW OF PRIVACY AND SAYING THAT WHAT OPTIONS, IF ANY, SHOULD BE GIVEN TO REGISTRANTS TO REMOVE DATA ELEMENTS FROM PUBLIC ACCESS.
SO IT IS BASICALLY ASSUMING THAT THERE IS PUBLIC ACCESS AND THAT THE OTHER MECHANISM OF ACCESS COULD BE VIA ESTABLISHED MEANS, LAW ENFORCEMENT, ET CETERA.
>>MARILYN CADE: AND I -- THIS DOES MAKE AN ASSUMPTION THAT THERE WOULD BE AT LEAST ONE MECHANISM AVAILABLE, WHICH WOULD BE THIRD-PARTY ANONYMITY, AND I WAS JUST TRYING TO UNDERSTAND WHETHER JORDYN WAS THINKING THAT -- WHETHER YOU WERE PROPOSING THAT THERE BE DISCUSSION OR EXAMINATION OF DIFFERENTIAL DISPLAY.
>>JORDYN BUCHANAN: YEAH, I THINK MY CONCERN WOULD BE ADDRESSED BY ADDING A SENTENCE TO 3, PERHAPS, INDICATING THAT "DISCUSS METHODS BY WHICH DATA MAY NOT BE MADE AVAILABLE TO THE PUBLIC BUT MAY BE MADE TO CERTAIN INDIVIDUALS AS NEEDED" OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT, CERTAIN ENTITIES. I CAN DO IT RIGHT NOW.
>>BRUCE TONKIN: CRAFT IT RIGHT NOW.
>>JORDYN BUCHANAN: I CAN DO IT RIGHT NOW IF YOU GIVE ME A MINUTE.
>>MARILYN CADE: CAN I SPEAK TO ONE FURTHER POINT?
>>BRUCE TONKIN: YEAH.
>>MARILYN CADE: AGAIN, I THINK WE MUST, AT SOME POINT, STOP AND SAY IN THAT CASE, ARE WE GREATLY EXPANDING THE WORK OF THIS PARTICULAR TASK FORCE AND CAN WE ACHIEVE THAT IN NINE DAYS.
>>BRUCE TONKIN: THAT'S MY CONCERN.
>>MARILYN CADE: I'M NOT MAKING A COMMENT ON THAT; I'M JUST SAYING AT SOME POINT WE NEED TO DO THAT.
>>BRUCE TONKIN: YEAH.
I THINK CERTAINLY THAT THE SECOND ITEM IN THAT LIST OF TASKS IS TRYING TO IDENTIFY WHAT DATA IS COLLECTED AND WHY.
AND THEN THE SEPARATE ISSUE IS, HOW'S THE DATA DISPLAYED, AS YOU RIGHTLY POINT OUT.
I THINK THIS TASK FORCE IS ASSUMING THAT THERE IS STILL PUBLIC DISPLAY OF THAT DATA AND THAT THERE MIGHT BE SOME MECHANISMS WHERE PEOPLE COULD PERHAPS OPT OUT OF DISPLAY OF SOME OF THAT IN A PUBLIC SENSE.
AND, I GUESS, ITEM 3 IS IDENTIFYING THAT AT THE CHOICE OF THE REGISTRANT, PERHAPS, THEY COULD OPT OUT OF THE SOME OF THE INFORMATION BEING DISPLAYED PUBLICLY.
AND THAT COULD EVEN BE WRITTEN THE OTHER WAY AROUND, AS THEY MAY CHOOSE TO OPT IN TO SOME INFORMATION BEING DISPLAYED PUBLICLY AS WELL.
>>PHILIP SHEPPARD: BRUCE, WOULD IT WORK BY ADDING TO THE BEGINNING OF THAT LAST SENTENCE OF 3, "CONSIDER ACCESS OPTIONS AND DECIDE WHAT OPTIONS, WHAT OTHER OPTIONS"?
WOULD THAT COVER YOUR POINT, JORDYN?
>>BRUCE TONKIN: JUST READ THAT WHOLE SENTENCE.
>>PHILIP SHEPPARD: SECOND SENTENCE OF 3 WOULD READ, "CONSIDER ACCESS OPTIONS AND DECIDE WHAT OTHER OPTIONS, IF ANY, WILL BE GIVEN TO," ET CETERA, ET CETERA.
>>BRUCE TONKIN: SO CONSIDER ACCESS OPTIONS.
>>PHILIP SHEPPARD: ACCESS OPTIONS AND.
>>BRUCE TONKIN: CONSIDER ACCESS OPTIONS.
>>JORDYN BUCHANAN: MY ONLY CONCERN THERE WOULD BE THAT THAT MAY -- I MEAN, IT'S ACTUALLY EXPLICITLY EXCLUDED ABOVE.
BUT -- WHAT'S NOT IN SCOPE.
BUT THAT'S A VAGUE ENOUGH PHRASE THAT IT COULD IMPLY, YOU KNOW, NONPORT-43 OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT AS -- OR, YOU KNOW, WHO KNOWS, MAGIC TECHNOLOGIES THAT DON'T EXIST THAT WE'RE NOT TRYING TO CONSIDER AS OPPOSED TO JUST THE IDEA OF DIFFERENTIATED ACCESS.
>>BRUCE TONKIN: ONE OF THE THINGS THAT COMPLICATES THINGS A LITTLE BIT IS THAT THE FIRST TASK FORCE MAY WELL -- OR THE FIRST DESCRIPTION OF WORK COULD, AS AN OUTCOME, DECIDE THAT THE MAIN INTEREST OF PREVENTING DATA MINING IS NOT TO DISPLAY ALL THE DATA IN OPEN, PUBLIC ACCESS WHICH IS ANONYMOUS, BUT THAT THE ADDITIONAL DATA ELEMENTS WOULD NEED TO BE OBTAINED THROUGH SOME SORT OF AUTHENTICATION PROCEDURE, AND THAT THAT IS THE SOLUTION TO DATA MINING.
SO IN SOME DEGREE, IT'S SAYING THAT THE DATA ELEMENTS ARE THERE, BUT THEY'RE NOT NECESSARILY DISPLAYED VIA, SAY, PORT-43.
IT MIGHT BE ONE OF THE THINGS THAT'S CONSIDERED IN MORE DETAIL IN THE FIRST DESCRIPTION AS ONE OF THE SOLUTIONS TO DATA MINING.
>>JORDYN BUCHANAN: SURE, YEAH.
MY ONLY CONCERN IS THAT THE TASK FORCE DOESN'T OPERATE UNDER THE ASSUMPTION THAT DATA THAT'S GATHERED IS EITHER SORT OF DISPLAYED TO THE PUBLIC OR NOT COLLECTED.
BECAUSE I THINK THAT WOULD --
>>BRUCE TONKIN: YOU'RE QUITE RIGHT THAT THEY ARE TWO VERY SEPARATE ISSUES.
AND I THINK CERTAINLY IT MAKES A DISCUSSION THAT WAS HELD WITH SOME MEMBERS OF THE REGISTRIES AND REGISTRARS A COUPLE OF MONTHS AGO, THE FEELING WAS THAT THE AMOUNT OF DATA COLLECTED WAS GOOD FOR THE PURPOSE OF CONTACTABILITY, BUT THAT THE AMOUNT OF DATA DISPLAYED TO THE PUBLIC WAS -- YOU KNOW, WAS CAUSING A PROBLEM FOR PRIVACY.
SO THAT WE HAVE SEPARATE ISSUES.
I'M JUST -- I CAN SEE THE POINT YOU'RE MAKING.
AND I ALSO CAN SEE WHAT MARILYN IS SAYING ALSO IF WE EXPAND IT TOO MUCH, IT GETS HARD TO MANAGE.
BUT I THINK YOU NEED TO DO NUMBER 2 FIRST, WHICH IS IDENTIFYING WHAT IS THE PURPOSE OF THE DATA ELEMENTS.
AND THEN YOU NEED TO CONSIDER, YOU KNOW, WHAT ELEMENTS SHOULD BE DISPLAYED PUBLICLY.
MAYBE WE CREATE A NEW -- LET'S CALL IT A NEW 3 OR CALL IT 2.B FOR THE MOMENT, WHICH BASICALLY SAYS, CONSIDER OPTIONS FOR PROVIDING LIMITED AMOUNTS OF THE DATA COLLECTED FOR PUBLIC ACCESS, SOMETHING LIKE THAT, FAIRLY NEUTRALLY -- SO JUST SAY, "CONSIDER OPTIONS FOR LIMITING THE AMOUNT OF DATA MADE AVAILABLE FOR PUBLIC ACCESS."
AND THAT WOULD NEED TO BE CONSIDERED IN THE CONTEXT OF WHAT THE USES AND THE PURPOSES OF THE DATA ELEMENTS ARE.
BECAUSE IT MAY BE THAT THE USES OF SOME OF THOSE OTHER ELEMENTS COULD BE NARROWED DOWN TO A PARTICULAR GROUP, AND YOU COULD PROVIDE DIFFERENT LEVELS OF ACCESS TO THAT PARTICULAR GROUP, FOR EXAMPLE.
SO, SO FAR, WE'VE REMOVED THE FIRST SENTENCE, WHICH JUST SAYS THIS TASK FORCE WILL BEGIN AT THE SAME TIME AS THE OTHER ONE, AND WE'VE ADDED A NEW SENTENCE OR A NEW PARAGRAPH WHICH SAYS, CONSIDER THE OPTIONS FOR LIMITING THE AMOUNT OF DATA MADE AVAILABLE FOR PUBLIC ACCESS.
ARE THERE ANY OTHER COMMENTS ON THIS DESCRIPTION OF WORK?
YES, CHUN.
>>CHUN EUNG HWI: CAN I LOOK AT THE CORRECT -- AT THE COMPLETED SENTENCES?
ADDITIONAL PART.
>>BRUCE TONKIN: PERHAPS I'LL JUST READ IT OUT AGAIN.
AND IF YOU LOOK BEHIND YOU, CHUN -- IN FACT, IN FRONT OF YOU, SO I'LL READ IT AGAIN AND PERHAPS HAVE A LOOK AT IT ON THE SCREEN.
SO THIS WILL BE A THIRD PARAGRAPH AFTER PARAGRAPH 2, UNDER "TASKS AND MILESTONES."
"CONSIDER OPTIONS FOR LIMITING THE AMOUNT OF DATA MADE AVAILABLE FOR PUBLIC ACCESS."
>>CHUN EUNG HWI: OKAY.
MY SUGGESTION IS TO ADD AT THE END OF THAT SENTENCE "IF ANY."
BECAUSE I THINK TO REVIEW THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH A NEED IS -- IS ALSO ONE IMPORTANT ISSUE FOR PRIVACY GROUP TO EXAMINE.
THAT'S WHY I WANT TO ADD THE TWO WORDS.
>>BRUCE TONKIN: OKAY.
I THINK THAT WOULD BE ONE OF THE OPTIONS.
SO IT COULD SAY "CONSIDER OPTIONS, INCLUDING THE OPTION OF" -- WHAT, REMOVING PUBLIC ACCESS?
IS THAT WHAT YOU'RE SAYING?
>>CHUN EUNG HWI: YES.
>>BRUCE TONKIN: OKAY.
I'LL TRY READING THAT SENTENCE AGAIN. "CONSIDER OPTIONS, INCLUDING THE OPTION FOR REMOVING PUBLIC ACCESS, FOR LIMITING THE AMOUNT OF DATA MADE AVAILABLE FOR PUBLIC ACCESS."
IS THAT -- TO DRAFT ON THE FLY HERE IS A BIT DIFFICULT.
GO AHEAD, MARILYN.
>>MARILYN CADE: ACTUALLY, I WOULD PREFER TO SUPPORT CHUN'S PREVIOUS LANGUAGE, WHICH I -- SOMEHOW I JUST THINK IS A BIT CLEARER, WHICH I THOUGHT WAS "CONSIDER OPTIONS FOR PROVIDING LIMITING THE AMOUNT OF DATA MADE AVAILABLE FOR PUBLIC ACCESS, IF ANY."
>>BRUCE TONKIN: OKAY.
I'M FINE WITH THAT WORDING AS WELL.
CAN YOU SEE THAT IN FRONT OF YOU NOW, CHUN?
>>THOMAS ROESSLER: STRIKE "PROVIDING."
>>BRUCE TONKIN: SORRY.
WHAT WAS THAT?
>>THOMAS ROESSLER: I SAID, STRIKE THE WORD "PROVIDING" FROM THE WORDING.
>>BRUCE TONKIN: STRIKE "PROVIDING."
OR TRY -- DO YOU WANT TO TRY READING THAT OUT AGAIN, MARILYN?
WE'LL SEE IF WE CAN GET THAT ON THE SCREEN.
>>MARILYN CADE: I'LL READ WHAT I SAID.
I'M NOT SURE WHAT THOMAS'S SUGGESTION WAS.
WHAT I SAID WAS "CONSIDER OPTIONS FOR PROVIDING LIMITED AMOUNTS OF" -- SORRY.
NOW I UNDERSTAND. "CONSIDER OPTIONS FOR LIMITING THE AMOUNT OF DATA MADE AVAILABLE FOR PUBLIC ACCESS, IF ANY."
THANK YOU, THOMAS.
>>JORDYN BUCHANAN: NOT TO BE A GRAMMARIAN, IT'S NOT CLEAR WHAT "IF ANY" APPLIES TO.
IT COULD APPLY TO THE LIMITS OR THE PUBLIC DATA.
I THINK, ACTUALLY, IT'S REDUNDANT.
ONE, THE EXTREME EXAMPLE OF LIMITING ACCESS TO THE DATA WOULD BE TO NOT PROVIDE ANY DATA.
I'M FINE WITH IT.
I JUST THINK IT'S NOT AS CLEAR --
>>BRUCE TONKIN: I KIND OF AGREE WITH YOU FROM A PURELY ENGINEERING SENSE, BUT I DON'T HAVE ANY PROBLEM WITH ADDING IT AS WELL.
SO WE'VE GOT "CONSIDER OPTIONS FOR LIMITING THE AMOUNT OF DATA MADE AVAILABLE FOR PUBLIC ACCESS, IF ANY."
SO ARE YOU OKAY WITH THAT, JORDYN?
YEP.
OKAY.
ANY OTHER SUGGESTIONS?
OKAY.
I'D LIKE TO THEN PUT THIS CURRENT DESCRIPTION OF WORK TO A VOTE.
AND SO IF I CAN START WITH PHILIP SHEPPARD.
>>PHILIP SHEPPARD: YES.
>>BRUCE TONKIN: MARILYN CADE.
>>MARILYN CADE: YES.
>>BRUCE TONKIN: GRANT.
>>MARILYN CADE: YES.
>>BRUCE TONKIN: JEFF NEUMAN.
>>JEFF NEUMAN: YES.
>>BRUCE TONKIN: CARY KARP.
>>CARY KARP: YES.
>>BRUCE TONKIN: JORDYN BUCHANAN.
>>JORDYN BUCHANAN: YES.
>>BRUCE TONKIN: TONY HARRIS.
>>TONY HARRIS: YES.
>>BRUCE TONKIN: TONY HOLMES.
>>TONY HOLMES: YES.
>>BRUCE TONKIN: GREG RUTH.
>>GREG RUTH: YES.
>>BRUCE TONKIN: CHUN.
>>CHUN EUNG HWI: ABSTAIN.
>>BRUCE TONKIN: OKAY.
MILTON MUELLER.
>>MILTON MUELLER: YES.
>>BRUCE TONKIN: I'M TAKING THAT AS A "YES."
GABRIEL?
>>GABRIEL PINEIRO: ABSTAIN.
>>BRUCE TONKIN: OKAY.
KEN STUBBS.
KEN STUBBS.
>>THOMAS KELLER: I'M HOLDING HIS PROXY, AND HIS ANSWER IS YES.
>>BRUCE TONKIN: OKAY.
AND I'LL VOTE IN FAVOR.
NIKLAS?
>>NIKLAS LAGERGREN: ABSTAIN.
>>BRUCE TONKIN: OKAY.
ELLEN?
>>ELLEN SHANKMAN: ABSTAIN.
>>BRUCE TONKIN: THANK YOU.
ABSTAIN FOR LYNDA AS WELL?
>>ELLEN SHANKMAN: YES.
>>BRUCE TONKIN: AMADEU?
>>AMADEU ABRIL I ABRIL: (INAUDIBLE).
>>BRUCE TONKIN: DEMI?
ALICK?
>>ALICK WILSON: IN FAVOR.
>>BRUCE TONKIN: OKAY.
WE'LL NOTE THAT MOTION AS CARRIED.
THE THIRD DESCRIPTION OF WORK IS IN THE AREA OF ACCURACY.
AND THE WORK ITEMS FOR THE DESCRIPTION OF WORK IN THE AREA OF ACCURACY IS, FIRSTLY, COLLECT INFORMATION ON THE CURRENT TECHNIQUES THAT REGISTRARS USE TO VERIFY THAT THE DATA COLLECTED IS CORRECT.
FOR EXAMPLE, TECHNIQUES TO DETECT TYPING ERRORS.
AND ALSO SURVEY APPROACHES USED BY COUNTRY CODES OPERATORS TO VERIFY THAT THEIR DATA IS CORRECT.
THE SECOND ITEM IS COLLECT INFORMATION ON TECHNIQUES USED BY OTHER ONLINE SERVICE PROVIDERS WHERE THERE'S NO PHYSICAL CONTACT WITH THE REGISTRANT AND NO PHYSICAL DELIVERY OF GOODS OR SERVICES TO VERIFY THAT DATA COLLECTED IS CORRECT.
OUT OF THAT, CREATE A BEST PRACTICES DOCUMENT FOR IMPROVING DATA VERIFICATION BASED ON THE INFORMATION COLLECTED THAT CAN BE APPLIED ON A GLOBAL BASIS.
DETERMINE WHETHER ANY CHANGES ARE REQUIRED IN THE CONTRACTS TO SPECIFY WHAT DATA VERIFICATION IS NECESSARY.
AND THEN DETERMINE WHAT VERIFICATION MECHANISMS CAN BE USED COST EFFECTIVELY TO COMBAT THE DELIBERATE PROVISION OF FALSE INFORMATION, AND DETERMINE WHETHER ADDITIONAL MECHANISMS ARE NECESSARY AND PROVIDE MORE TIMELY RESPONSES FOR MISUSE OF DOMAIN NAMES ASSOCIATED WITH DELIBERATE FALSE INFORMATION.
WOULD ANYONE LIKE TO COMMENT ON THOSE TASKS IN THE AREA OF ACCURACY?
OKAY.
IF WE HAVE NO COMMENTS, THEN I WILL MOVE TO VOTE ON THESE AS WELL.
>>CHUN EUNG HWI: MR. CHAIRMAN.
>>BRUCE TONKIN: YES, GO AHEAD, CHUN.
>>CHUN EUNG HWI: I WOULD LIKE TO SUGGEST HERE TO TAKE OUT TWO PARTS.
(INAUDIBLE) OF THE FIRST PAGE.
I WANT TO PROPOSE TO TAKE OUT TWO PARTS OF THE TERMS OF REFERENCE.
>>BRUCE TONKIN: YES, WHICH ARE?
WHICH PARTS?
>>CHUN EUNG HWI: PLEASE SHOW THE FIRST PAGE.
SECOND PARAGRAPH.
>>BRUCE TONKIN: YEP.
>>CHUN EUNG HWI: THE SECOND PARAGRAPH IS "ACCORDING TO THE OECD GUIDELINES."
IN MY VIEW, THOSE PARTS ARE INAPPROPRIATE, CONSIDERING THE CONTEXT HERE OF THIS IN TERMS OF REFERENCE.
BECAUSE I THINK, BASICALLY, THE DATA QUALITY REQUIREMENT FOR OECD PRIVACY GUIDELINE IS APPLIED TO REGISTRANTS, USERS, RATHER THAN SERVICE PROVIDERS.
AND ALSO, SECONDLY, THE OECD GUIDELINES FOR CONSUMER PROTECTION IS APPLIED TO E-COMMERCE CASES.
AT THE TIME, USUALLY, THAT KIND OF DISCLOSURE OF INFORMATION IS NEEDED FOR WEB SITE RATHER THAN WHOIS FUNCTION.
SO I THINK IT'S VERY INAPPROPRIATE FOR QUOTING THOSE TWO OECD PRIVACY GUIDELINES.
SO I WANT TO TAKE OUT THAT PART COMPLETELY.
AND ON THE SECOND PAGE, FROM THE BOTTOM, SECOND PARAGRAPH, --
>>BRUCE TONKIN: CAN WE JUST PERHAPS DEAL WITH THOSE SUGGESTED CHANGES?
I GUESS IT -- WELL, WE CAN REMOVE THOSE.
ALL WE'RE REALLY DOING HERE IS CREATING SOME BACKGROUND AND SOME LINKS TO SOME GUIDELINES.
AND I GUESS WHAT YOU'RE SAYING IS THAT IF YOU GO TO LOOK AT THE GUIDELINES, YOU NEED TO LOOK AT THEM IN TOTAL RATHER THAN NECESSARILY INDIVIDUAL SENTENCES.
MY ATTEMPT HERE WAS TO TRY AND SORT OF BALANCE THINGS, BECAUSE OFTEN I HEAR ONE QUOTED AND NOT THE OTHER, DEPENDING ON WHICH PARTY IT IS.
AND CERTAINLY, TO ADDRESS YOUR PARTICULAR QUESTION ABOUT USERS WITH REGARD TO DATA BEING ACCURATE, WE DO GET REQUESTS FROM MANY USERS OF THEIR OWN DATA THAT THEY WANT THEIR DATA ACCURATE.
AND THEY WANT IT ACCURATE FOR REASONS OF LEGAL OR CONTACT.
SO THAT IS A TRUE STATEMENT.
I KNOW YOU ARE TAKING THE POINT OF VIEW OF A USER BEING CONCERNED ABOUT THEIR PRIVACY.
BUT OTHER USERS ARE ACTUALLY CONCERNED THAT THEIR DATA IS ACCURATE THAT'S PROVIDED TO OTHER PARTIES.
SO IT IS A TRUE STATEMENT.
AND THE QUESTION AS TO WHETHER IT HELPS OR ABETS ANY PARTICULAR POLICY POSITION.
THE SAME WITH ELECTRONIC COMMERCE, IS THAT THOSE ARE ISSUES.
AND YOU'RE CORRECT THAT THOSE GUIDELINES COULD BE MET IN OTHER WAYS, FOR EXAMPLE, A WEB SITE AND OTHER THINGS.
THEY DON'T NEED TO BE MET BY WHOIS.
THOSE ARE JUST MY COMMENTS.
I HAVE NO REAL PROBLEM WITH REMOVING THEM.
BUT I JUST PERHAPS WOULD LIKE SOME DISCUSSION ON THIS TOPIC.
GO AHEAD, PHILIP.
>>PHILIP SHEPPARD: THERE ARE MANY REFERENCES IN LIFE, THE FACTS OF WHICH I DON'T AGREE WITH.
HOWEVER, THE CONCEPT OF REMOVING REFERENCES THAT YOU DON'T AGREE WITH, I THINK, IS QUITE APPROPRIATE WHEN THOSE REFERENCES MAY INFORM.
I THINK THE LINK HERE TO THE OECD GUIDELINES DOES INFORM THE DEBATE.
AND THEREFORE I WOULD OPPOSE REMOVING THEM.
>>BRUCE TONKIN: ONE OTHER APPROACH IS JUST TO BASICALLY SAY, FOR EXAMPLE, DATA QUALITY IS DISCUSSED IN THE OECD PRIVACY GUIDELINES AND OECD GUIDELINES FOR CONSUMER PROTECTION WITHOUT QUOTING SPECIFIC SECTIONS, BECAUSE I THINK WHAT CHUN IS SAYING IS THAT IF I QUOTE A SPECIFIC SECTION, IT CAN BE OUT OF CONTEXT OF THE WHOLE DOCUMENT.
SO WHAT I SUGGEST IS CHANGE IT JUST TO SAY -- JUST REFERENCE THE GUIDELINES WITHOUT QUOTING TEXT.
IS THAT ACCEPTABLE OR?
>>CHUN EUNG HWI: I'D LIKE TO CLARIFY MY POINT.
WHOIS BASICALLY WAS DEVELOPED FOR A TECHNICAL FUNCTION.
THE PROBLEM IS HERE, THOSE PRIVACY GUIDELINES ARE QUOTED FOR THE PROPOSAL OF SUPPORTING SOME OTHER PURPOSES IS MY PERCEPTION.
SO WE SHOULD CLARIFY WHY WHOIS IS NECESSARY.
SO I THINK THE SECOND PART OF THE OF THIS DOCUMENT IS QUOTING ICANN SECURITY AND STABILITY ADVISORY COMMITTEE COMMENTS.
I THINK IT'S REALLY APPROPRIATE, BECAUSE WHOIS IS BASICALLY OPERATING AS A FUNCTION FOR THE STABILITY OF THE NETWORK.
THE PROBLEM IS THAT THE PARTS WHICH I'M -- I WANT TO REMOVE OUT IS REGARDING WITH SOME KIND OF DIFFERENT PURPOSES OUT OF THE ORIGINAL TECHNICAL FUNCTION.
SO I'D LIKE TO CLARIFY THIS POINT.
>>BRUCE TONKIN: WAS THAT CARY?
>>CARY KARP: I THINK WE NEED TO BE MORE ATTENTIVE TO THE TELEPHONE QUEUE.
WE'RE BEING IM'D, ASKING, PLEASE, TO HAVE THIS LOUD SPEAKER NOT TURNED DOWN WHEN PEOPLE ASK SPEAK.
SO WE'RE NOT HEARING PEOPLE ON THE TELEPHONE LINE.
>>BRUCE TONKIN: DO EITHER MILTON OR JEFF NEUMAN WANT TO SPEAK TO THIS ISSUE?
>>JEFF NEUMAN: THIS IS JEFF.
I DON'T HAVE ANY COMMENTS WITH CHUN'S ISSUE.
IT'S ANOTHER ISSUE ON THE REPORT.
>>BRUCE TONKIN: MILTON, DID YOU WANT TO COMMENT?
>>MILTON MUELLER: I UNDERSTAND WHAT CHUN IS TRYING TO DO.
AND I SUPPORT IT.
MY MAIN COMMENT SIMPLY IS THAT IT'S -- IT IS SOMETHING OF A WARPING OF THE CONTEXT OF THE OECD PRIVACY GUIDELINES TO INCLUDE THEM HERE, BECAUSE THE PURPOSE OF IMPROVED ACCURACY AS WE UNDERSTAND IT IS PRIMARILY ONE OF LAW ENFORCEMENT AND IT ENFORCEMENT, AND THE OECD GUIDELINES ARE CONCERNED PRIMARILY WITH THE FORMS OF DATA QUALITY THAT AFFECT USERS AND HAS NOTHING TO SAY ABOUT WHETHER THAT DATA IS MADE PUBLIC OR NOT.
AND THE SAME THING WITH THE ELECTRONIC COMMERCE GUIDELINES.
THOSE FORMS OF IDENTIFICATION WHICH, YOU KNOW, WE MAY SUPPORT, NEEDN'T BE PART OF WHOIS.
THEY COULD BE REQUIRED TO BE ON THE WEB SITE, FOR EXAMPLE. SO I DON'T THINK IT'S -- YOU KNOW, I DON'T THINK THIS COMPLETELY ELIMINATES THE VALUE OF THE TASK FORCE IN TERMS OF REFERENCE, BUT IT, I THINK, WOULD BE BETTER TO NOT HAVE IT.
>>BRUCE TONKIN: YEAH.
I THINK -- I THINK SOME OF THESE WERE INCLUDED BECAUSE THEY DID COME UP BY COMMITTEE MEMBERS IN THE STEERING COMMITTEE.
DIFFERENT MEMBERS RAISED THESE ISSUES.
AND I THOUGHT IT WAS BEST TO QUOTE THE EXACT TEXT THAT THEY WERE REFERRING TO.
AND, YEAH, IT'S PROBABLY, IN RETROSPECT, MORE APPROPRIATE JUST TO HAVE THAT IN THE MINUTES OF THE DIFFERENT DISCUSSIONS IN THE STEERING COMMITTEE RATHER THAN TRYING TO INCLUDE THEM DIRECTLY IN THE BACKGROUND.
MARILYN.
>>MARILYN CADE: PERHAPS A COMPROMISE IS -- BECAUSE, ACTUALLY, THOSE DOCUMENTS ARE QUOTED EXTENSIVELY BY THE NONCOMMERCIAL CONSTITUENCY, AND IN POINTING OUT AND BRINGING TO PEOPLE'S ATTENTION THAT THERE WERE RESOURCES.
I THINK THE INTENT, AS I UNDERSTAND IT, MR. CHAIRMAN, WAS TO JUST MAKE NOTE THAT THERE WERE RESOURCES AVAILABLE --
>>BRUCE TONKIN: YES.
>>MARILYN CADE: -- AS REFERENCES.
AND PERHAPS THAT COULD BE JUST NOTED THAT DATA QUALITY HAS BEEN RECOGNIZED AS IMPORTANT BY SEVERAL GROUPS, FOR EXAMPLE, AND JUST LIST THEM, WITH NO OTHER COMMENT.
>>BRUCE TONKIN: YEAH.
THAT'S WHAT I WAS THINKING OF DOING, IS JUST PROVIDING LINKS TO SOME OF THESE THINGS, WHICH IS THE PRIVACY GUIDELINES, THE CONSUMER PROTECTION, AND THE SECURITY AND STABILITY ADVISORY COMMITTEE.
BECAUSE THEY HAVE BEEN -- IT'S ONE OF THESE THINGS, YOU NEED TO HAVE A SET OF FACTS, AND THEN YOU CAN DISCUSS WHAT YOU THINK THOSE FACTS MEAN.
BUT BOTH PARTIES HAVE QUOTED THESE GUIDELINES TO STRENGTHEN THEIR ARGUMENTS AT DIFFERENT TIMES.
AND I THOUGHT IT WAS USEFUL FOR THE COMMUNITY TO BE ABLE TO ACTUALLY GO AND READ THE ORIGINAL DOCUMENTS, AND -- BY REFERENCE.
SO PERHAPS WE JUST SAY DATA QUALITY HAS BEEN RECOGNIZED AS IMPORTANT BY SEVERAL GROUPS, INCLUDING THE OECD, AND WE CAN IDENTIFY SOME LINKS TO THOSE TWO SETS OF GUIDELINES, AND THE SECURITY AND STABILITY COMMITTEE, AND LEAVE IT AT THAT.
AND, YEAH, IF YOU READ THE SOURCE DOCUMENTS, THEN IT'LL GIVE YOU CONTEXT.
>>CHUN EUNG HWI: OKAY.
I CAN ACCEPT.
>>BRUCE TONKIN: YOU CAN?
>>CHUN EUNG HWI: (NOD OF THE HEAD.)
>>BRUCE TONKIN: OKAY.
OKAY.
SO JUST SAY DATA QUALITY HAS BEEN RECOGNIZED AS IMPORTANT BY SEVERAL GROUPS, INCLUDING OECD, AND THEN LINKS TO THE TWO SETS OF GUIDELINES THERE, PRIVACY GUIDELINES AND PROTECTION, AND ICANN'S SECURITY AND STABILITY COMMITTEE, AND JUST A LINK TO THEIR REPORT.
OKAY.
AND YOU HAD -- WHAT WAS YOUR NEXT COMMENT YOU HAD, CHUN?
>>CHUN EUNG HWI: PAGE NUMBER 2, FROM THE BOTTOM, SECOND PARAGRAPH, FROM THE MIDDLE -- FROM THE CENTER OF THAT PARAGRAPH, THAT SENTENCE STARTS WITH "IN SUCH CASES, IT MAY BE NECESSARY."
THAT SENTENCE AND NEXT SENTENCE.
THOSE TWO SENTENCES ARE ALSO INAPPROPRIATE IN THIS CONTEXT, BECAUSE IT IS ADDRESSING DIFFERENT ISSUES, LIKE TRACKING AND HAVE YOU EVER VALANCE.
SO I THINK IT IS OUT OF THE SCOPE OF WHOIS.
SO I WANT TO TAKE BOTH OF THOSE SENTENCES OUT.
>>BRUCE TONKIN: JUST SLOW DOWN.
I'M LOST AS TO WHERE THOSE ARE.
CAN YOU JUST TELL ME WHICH SECTION YOU'RE REFERRING TO.
>>CHUN EUNG HWI: FROM THE SENTENCE BEGINNING, "IN SUCH CASES, IT MAY BE NECESSARY TO COLLECT ADDITIONAL INFORMATION ASSOCIATED WITH AN ONLINE REGISTRATION TO AID IN CONTACTING THE REGISTRANT, INCLUDING CREDIT CARD INFORMATION, SOURCE IP ADDRESSES, WEB SITE TRAFFIC LOGS, OR USE OTHER APPROPRIATE APPROACHES TO IDENTIFY REGISTRATIONS WITH SUSPECTED FALSE INFORMATION," AND NEXT SENTENCE.
THOSE ARE -- BOTH SENTENCES ARE NOT REQUIRED IN THIS CONTEXT.
AND I THINK IT ADDRESSES DIFFERENT -- OTHER ISSUES.
SO I WANT TO TAKE OUT THOSE TWO SENTENCES.
>>BRUCE TONKIN: OKAY.
I GUESS THE INTENT THERE IS JUST TO SAY THAT THERE ARE OTHER MECHANISMS OTHER THAN THE ACCURACY OF THE WHOIS INFORMATION THAT CAN BE USED IN THE CASE OF TRACKING DOWN CRIMINAL LAW OR FRAUDULENT ACTIVITY.
THESE THINGS EXIST TODAY.
IF YOU'RE AN INTERNET SERVICE PROVIDER, GENERALLY, YOU ARE SUBJECT, CERTAINLY IN AUSTRALIA RIGHT NOW, THAT LAW ENFORCEMENT CAN ACTUALLY REQUEST THAT SORT OF INFORMATION TO TRACK THINGS DOWN.
PHILIP.
>>PHILIP SHEPPARD: I HAVE SOMETHING THAT MIGHT BE A POINT OF ORDER.
I NOTED THAT ON THE LAST TERMS OF REFERENCE, WE ACCEPTED SOME AMENDMENTS WHICH WERE THEN ABSTAINED ON BY THE PROPOSER OF THE AMENDMENT.
I'D LIKE TO ASK CHUN IF IT IS HIS INTENT IN THIS CASE TO VOTE IN FAVOR OF THESE PARTICULAR SET OF PROPOSALS IF THE REST OF THIS GROUP ACCEPTS YOUR AMENDMENTS.
BECAUSE I, FOR ONE, WAS UNABLE TO ACCEPT YOUR AMENDMENTS BY THEN FINDING THAT YOU ARE FAILING TO VOTE IN FAVOR OF THOSE.
>>BRUCE TONKIN: PERHAPS I'LL ASK THAT QUESTION A DIFFERENT WAY, WHICH WAS, WHY DID YOU ABSTAIN FROM THE VOTE ON THE LAST TERMS OF REFERENCE?
BECAUSE WE DID MAKE SOME CHANGES THAT YOU SUGGESTED.
SO I WAS UNCLEAR AS TO WHY YOU ABSTAINED.
>>CHUN EUNG HWI: I'M SORRY.
I COULDN'T EXPRESS MY INTENT CORRECTLY.
BUT MY INTENTION WAS, AS A WHOLE, TERMS OF REFERENCE 2 IS OKAY.
BUT PARTIALLY, THERE WAS SOME OBJECTION.
SO I CHOSE AT THAT -- MAYBE I THINK I TOOK SOME MISTAKE.
OKAY?
>>THOMAS ROESSLER: BRUCE, MAY I ASK YOU ONE FAVOR?
COULD YOU MAYBE BRIEFLY, VERY BRIEFLY, EXPLAIN ONCE MORE THE RULE THAT AN ABSTENTION PLAYS IN THE RULES OF PROCEDURE OF THE GNSO COUNCIL.
IT MAY NOT BE CLEAR TO EVERYONE AT THIS TABLE WHAT THAT ROLE IS.
>>BRUCE TONKIN: THAT'S A GOOD QUESTION.
YEAH, I THINK IN -- FROM A PURELY (INAUDIBLE) POINT OF VIEW, ONLY VOTES CAST IN FAVOR COUNT IN RESPECT OF PASSING A MOTION.
SO AN ABSTENTION AND A VOTE AGAINST ARE EFFECTIVELY TREATED THE SAME WAY FROM A VOTING PERSPECTIVE.
MY UNDERSTANDING OF THE USE OF AN ABSTENTION IS, GENERALLY, WHEN YOU BELIEVE YOU HAVE A CONFLICT OF INTEREST AND FEEL IN SOME WAY THAT YOU CAN'T VOTE ON THAT ISSUE.
SO MY ADVICE TO COUNCIL MEMBERS, IN GENERAL, IS TO VOTE FOR OR AGAINST A PARTICULAR MOTION.
AND THEN IF YOU'RE ABSTAINING, THERE'S GENERALLY A REASON.
SO IF I WAS TO VOTE -- IF THERE WAS A VOTE TO, YOU KNOW, GIVE ME $100, I WOULD ABSTAIN, BECAUSE I HAVE A FINANCIAL INTEREST IN THAT VOTE.
AS AN EXAMPLE.
SO JUST COMING BACK TO WHERE WE ARE HERE, CHUN HAS SUGGESTED REMOVING SOME DETAILS ABOUT WHAT YOU MAY DO IN ADDITION TO ACCURACY.
AND, AGAIN, I HAVE NO PROBLEM WITH, REALLY, REMOVING THAT TEXT.
IT WAS, AGAIN, JUST PROVIDED TO JUST GIVE SOME SUGGESTIONS TO THE COMMUNITY OF DIFFERENT WAYS OF VIEWING THE PROBLEM.
BECAUSE SOMETIMES THERE'S AN OVEREMPHASIS IN TRYING TO SPEND MILLIONS OF DOLLARS FROM A REGISTRAR PERSPECTIVE ON GETTING ACCURATE DATA IN REGARDS TO THE CONTACT DATA OF A REGISTRANT, WHEN THERE IS OTHER DATA THAT YOU CAN COLLECT WHICH DOESN'T NECESSARILY HAVE THE SAME PRIVACY IMPLICATION BUT COULD BE USED IN A CRIMINAL CASE.
>>THOMAS ROESSLER: I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE ONE MORE NOTE ON A SPECIFIC DATA ELEMENT THAT'S BEEN MENTIONED HERE AND I WOULD RESPECTFULLY REQUESTING REMOVING IT AND THAT IS WEB SITE TRAFFIC LOGS AND (INAUDIBLE) JURISDICTIONS WHERE IT IS NOT PERMISSIBLE TO KEEP THESE RECORDS.
SO YOU MAY BE OPENING UP A CAN OF WORMS HERE.
I WOULD RATHER KEEP IT OUT.
>>BRUCE TONKIN: YEAH.
AND I -- AGAIN, ALL WE'RE TALKING ABOUT IN THESE CHANGES IS CHANGING BACKGROUND INFORMATION.
AND IT WAS REALLY -- IT'S NOT COMING UP WITH A POLICY OUTCOME IN ANY SENSE.
BUT I HAVE NO PROBLEM REMOVING THAT TEXT IF PEOPLE HAVE CONCERNS.
GO AHEAD, MARILYN.
>>MARILYN CADE: BRUCE, I THINK IT, YOU KNOW, PERHAPS WAS NOT AS CLEAR AS IT MIGHT HAVE BEEN THAT THIS WAS, IN FACT, BACKGROUND. I UNDERSTOOD IT TO BE THAT AND IT WAS NOT APPLICABLE TO -- IT WAS MORE TO SET THE STAGE THAT THERE ARE OTHER MECHANISMS OUTSIDE OF WHOIS --
>>BRUCE TONKIN: YES.
>>MARILYN CADE: -- WHERE, IN FACT, THIS KIND OF DATA MAY BE GATHERED AND THAT THERE ARE VALID REASONS TO DO THAT.
AS A BACKGROUND STATEMENT, I THINK IT MAY STILL BE HELPFUL WITH CERTAIN EDITING, BUT WE WOULD PROBABLY WANT TO JUST MAKE IT VERY CLEAR THAT IT MIGHT READ OUTSIDE OF THE WHOIS ENVIRONMENT ITSELF, OR SOMETHING OF THAT NATURE, JUST IN ORDER TO MAKE SURE THAT IT'S TOTALLY CLEAR IT'S EXTERNAL TO WHOIS.
>>BRUCE TONKIN: YEAH. SO WE MIGHT REPLACE THE TEXT IN TERMS OF BACKGROUND. IT'S DIFFICULT TO USE VERIFICATION FOR REGISTRANTS THAT DELIBERATELY PROVIDE FALSE INFORMATION. THE HIGH COST MECHANISMS TO VERIFY CONTACT INFORMATION CAN BE EVADED BY COST MECHANISMS. AND THEN WE MAY JUST HAVE A STATEMENT THAT THERE MAY BE MECHANISMS OUTSIDE OF WHOIS TO DEAL WITH THIS ISSUE, AND PERHAPS JUST LEAVE THAT AS A SENTENCE.
IS THAT ACCEPTABLE, IF I INSERT THE TEXT? AND I'LL JUST READ IT AGAIN.
IF I REPLACE THE TEXT THAT YOU WANTED REMOVED, CHUN, WITH THE TEXT, "THERE MAY BE MECHANISMS OUTSIDE OF WHOIS TO ADDRESS THIS ISSUE."
>>CHUN EUNG HWI: (NODS HEAD.)
>>BRUCE TONKIN: IS THAT ACCEPTABLE? OKAY.
>>CARY KARP: BRUCE, WE STILL HAVE A PROBLEM WITH THE TELEPHONE QUEUE. THERE ARE STILL PEOPLE WHO EXPRESSED INTEREST TO SPEAK WAY BEFORE THE PEOPLE WHO ARE SPEAKING NOW. IS THERE ANY WAY WE CAN BE MORE ATTENTIVE TO THAT?
>>BRUCE TONKIN: PERHAPS GLEN CAN REQUEST THAT.
I GUESS THIS IS REALLY -- CHUN HAS --
>>MARILYN CADE: ALICK'S WIRELESS IS WORKING AND MINE IS NOT.
>>BRUCE TONKIN: YEAH, BECAUSE I CAN'T GET ONLINE. IF I WAS ONLINE SOMEONE COULD JUST MESSAGE ME.
I THINK THEY JUST NEED TO SHOUT, I THINK, CARY.
>>CARY KARP: IT SEEMS THAT THE PROBLEM IS THE SPEAKER IS BEING TURNED DOWN WHEN IT'S NOT BEING USED. SO THEY ARE SHOUTING, BUT WE ARE NOT HEARING. THAT IS THE PROBLEM.
>>BRUCE TONKIN: OKAY.
>>KEN STUBBS: SOMEONE JUST SPOKE UP --
>>BRUCE TONKIN: I'LL GET BACK TO THE VOICE LINE AGAIN. DOES EITHER MILTON OR JEFF WISH TO SPEAK?
>>JEFF NEUMAN: THIS IS JEFF.
>>BRUCE TONKIN: GO AHEAD, JEFF.
>>JEFF NEUMAN: IN THE -- I'D LIKE TO MAKE A COMMENT ON THE TASKS AND MILESTONES SECTION.
I DON'T KNOW IF THIS IS ADDING A NEW TASK OR PUTTING A SECOND SENTENCE ON THE SECOND TASK, BUT I WOULD LIKE TO INCLUDE A SENTENCE THAT SAYS, WHEN YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT COLLECTION OF INFORMATION ON TECHNIQUES USED BY OTHER ONLINE SERVICE PROVIDERS, I WOULD LIKE TO ADD A SENTENCE SAYING SOMETHING TO THE EFFECT OF, "THIS SHOULD INCLUDE COLLECTION OF INFORMATION COMPARING THE COSTS OF THE SERVICES PROVIDED BY THE ONLINE SERVICE PROVIDER WITH THE COST OF EMPLOYING THE VERIFICATION TECHNIQUES."
I CAN SEND THAT, IF YOU'D LIKE.
SO, IN OTHER WORDS, THERE COULD BE AN ONLINE SERVICE PROVIDER THAT HAS NO PHYSICAL CONTACT WITH THE REGISTRANT AND NO PHYSICAL DELIVERY OF GOODS OR SERVICES BUT COULD CHARGE A THOUSAND DOLLARS FOR WHATEVER THEIR SERVICE IS. AND OF COURSE THEY WOULD HAVE TECHNIQUES THAT THEY COULD AFFORD TO USE. AND I THINK WHEN YOU COLLECT INFORMATION ON THOSE TECHNIQUES, YOU NEED TO COLLECT INFORMATION ON THE COST AS WELL.
>>BRUCE TONKIN: SORRY, JEFF, I'VE JUST GOT DISTRACTED THERE FOR A SECOND.
THE -- JUST REPEAT -- YOU'RE WANTING A -- THE ISSUE OF COST TO BE CONSIDERED? IS THAT YOUR REQUEST?
>>JEFF NEUMAN: NOT TO BE CONSIDERED BUT TO BE COLLECTED.
JORDYN, ARE YOU THERE? I SENT YOU THE LANGUAGE.
>>JORDYN BUCHANAN: YEAH.
>>JEFF NEUMAN: IT MIGHT BE EASIER FOR YOU.
>>JORDYN BUCHANAN: YEAH, I CAN REPEAT. HE SENT ME THE LANGUAGE. IT SAYS "THIS SHOULD INCLUDE COLLECTION OF INFORMATION COMPARING THE COSTS OF THE SERVICES PROVIDED BY THE ONLINE SERVICE PROVIDER WITH THE COSTS IN EMPLOYING THE VERIFICATION TECHNIQUES."
SO THE IDEA IS JUST THAT SOME PEOPLE MIGHT BE CHARGING A LOT FOR THEIR SERVICES AND SO THEY CAN AFFORD LIKE A $25 VERIFICATION FEE WHEREAS THAT MAY NOT MAKE SENSE FOR A $6 DOMAIN NAME.
>>BRUCE TONKIN: MARILYN.
>>MARILYN CADE: I DON'T OBJECT TO THE INTENT, BUT I DO OBJECT TO THE WAY IT'S BEING PROPOSED. THIS WOULD BE A REQUEST FOR PROPRIETARY INFORMATION. JUST AS REGISTRARS AND REGISTRIES ARE INCREDIBLY SENSITIVE ABOUT ANY REQUESTS FOR PROPRIETARY INFORMATION RELATED TO THE BUSINESS THAT YOU DO, SO WOULD BE ISPS, OSPS AND CONNECTIVITY PROVIDERS.
SO PERHAPS WE COULD TAKE THE INTENT AND JUST CAPTURE THE INTENT.
AND I THINK SOME ASSESSMENT OF WHAT IT WOULD COST TO PROVIDE THOSE KINDS OF VALIDATION COULD BE EXAMINED. BUT WE REALLY CAN'T BE ASKING ISPS TO GIVE US PROPRIETARY INFORMATION.
>>BRUCE TONKIN: I THINK THE POINT THAT JORDYN AND JEFF ARE MAKING IS NOT SO MUCH THE COST BUT THE PRICE OF THE SERVICE. SO, FOR EXAMPLE, YOU CAN BUY DIGITAL CERTIFICATES FOR, SAY, A THOUSAND DOLLARS AND THERE'S QUITE A LOT OF VERIFICATION THAT'S USED IN THAT PROCESS. WHEREAS YOU CAN BUY DOMAIN NAMES FOR A LOWER FEE AND PERHAPS THE QUESTION IS REALLY FOR THE COMMUNITY, HOW MUCH DO YOU WANT TO BE PAYING FOR THESE SERVICES.
I THINK THAT WAS OF THE KIND OF THE CONTEXT OF IT.
>>MARILYN CADE: SO YOU WOULD BE SUGGESTING A MARKET SURVEY OF THE KIND OF PRICING IN THE MARKETPLACE.
>>BRUCE TONKIN: I'M SAYING YOU WOULDN'T NECESSARILY HAVE TO USE THEIR COST. YOU CAN SAY WHAT TECHNIQUES DO THEY USE FOR ACCURACY AND THEN YOU CAN SEE THE PRICE OF THAT SERVICE BECAUSE IT'S PUBLIC.
>>JEFF NEUMAN: HEY, BRUCE?
>>BRUCE TONKIN: YES.
>>JEFF NEUMAN: JUST TO ADD TO THAT. IF YOU'RE COLLECTING INFORMATION ON THE TECHNIQUES EMPLOYED BY THESE ONLINE SERVICE PROVIDERS, THEN THERE'S NO PROBLEM IN COLLECTING THE COSTS THAT THAT SERVICE IS, EXACTLY AS BRUCE SAID IT. IF YOU'RE GET AGO CERTIFICATE, IT COULD BE A THOUSAND DOLLARS, $25,000. AND OF COURSE, THAT IS VERY RELEVANT WHEN YOU'RE COLLECTING INFORMATION ON TECHNIQUES USED BY OTHER ONLINE SERVICE PROVIDERS, WHICH IS TASK NUMBER 2.
>>BRUCE TONKIN: YEAH. PERHAPS I'LL JUST THINK OF SOME WORDS THERE. IT'S COLLECT INFORMATION ON TECHNIQUES USED BY OTHER ONLINE SERVICE PROVIDERS TO VERIFY THAT DATA COLLECTED IS CORRECT WITH CONSIDERATION OF THE VALUE OR CONSIDERATION OF THE PRICE OF THE SERVICES OFFERED BY THOSE ONLINE SERVICE PROVIDERS.
SO I GUESS IT'S WITH CONSIDERATION OF THE PRICE OF THOSE SERVICES. DOES THAT MAKE SENSE?
>>MARILYN CADE: I CAN'T QUITE FIGURE OUT HOW YOU THINK YOU'RE GOING TO GET THE INFORMATION SO LET ME JUST GIVE YOU AN EXAMPLE.
THOSE OF US WHO PROVIDE THESE KINDS OF SERVICES, IF WE HAVE A VERY LARGE NUMBER OF CUSTOMERS PROBABLY HAVE PREFERRED DISCOUNTS, AND WE MAY BE OFFERING A BUNDLED SERVICE. AND I THINK IT WOULD BE VERY UNLIKELY THAT YOU WOULD BE ABLE TO -- AND I THINK IT WOULD BE VERY -- I SUSPECT LEGAL COUNSEL IN CERTAIN OF THESE COMPANIES WOULD PROBABLY ADVISE PEOPLE NOT TO BE DISCLOSING THE TERMS OF THOSE CONTRACTS.
SO I'M NOT SURE HOW YOU'RE GOING TO GET THE INFORMATION IN THIS WAY.
>>JEFF NEUMAN: MARILYN, THIS IS JEFF. I'M SORRY I'M NOT THERE, I WISH I WAS. BUT IF YOU COULD GET INFORMATION ON THE TECHNIQUES USED BY THOSE PROVIDERS ON VERIFYING INFORMATION, YOU CERTAINLY CAN GO TO THEIR WEB SITE AND FIND OUT HOW MUCH THEIR SERVICE -- NOT THE VERIFICATION SERVICE BUT THE ACTUAL PRODUCT THAT THEY'RE SELLING, YOU COULD FIND OUT HOW MUCH THAT COST. AND IF YOU CAN'T, THEN I WOULD SUBMIT THAT THIS WHOLE MILESTONE SHOULD BE CROSSED OUT. BECAUSE IT HAS NO RELEVANCE IF YOU CAN'T COMPARE IT TO THE PRICE OF THE SERVICE.
>>BRUCE TONKIN: YEAH, I THINK THE -- JUST FOR THE POINT OF CLARIFICATION IN THE POLICY PROCESS, THE POLICY PROCESS REQUIRES, IN ANY CASE, A CONSIDERATION OF THE COST OF ANY CHANGES IN POLICY. SO IN ANY CASE, LET'S SAY THE -- THERE WAS A REQUIREMENT TO VISIT A REGISTRANT IN PERSON, WHEREVER THEY HAPPENED TO BE IN THE WORLD. YOU COULD THEN SAY, OKAY, THE COST OF ME VISITING SIBERIA TO VISIT A REGISTRANT IS GOING TO COST ME $10,000. YOU COULD CERTAINLY QUANTIFY THAT AS PART OF THE POLICY PROCESS.
SO I UNDERSTAND THE INTENT THAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT, JEFF, BUT I THINK IT'S ALSO BUILT INTO THE PROCESS; THAT REGISTRARS AND REGISTRIES, IF THERE IS A SUGGESTION ABOUT A PARTICULAR TECHNIQUE, WILL COMMENT ABOUT THE COST OF PROVIDING THAT TECHNIQUE.
>>JEFF NEUMAN: I MEAN, ALL I'M ASKING FOR IS IN THE COLLECTION PROCESS OF INFORMATION, TO MAKE IT EASIER FOR US TO COMMENT, RATHER THAN HAVING A REPORT THAT SAYS, YOU KNOW, THIS TECHNIQUE IS USED BY SOME AND THIS TECHNIQUE IS USED BY OTHERS, YOU KNOW, YOU ALSO NEED TO SAY, THIS TECHNIQUE IS USED BY A CERTIFICATE PROVIDER WHO CHARGES $5,000 FOR THEIR SERVICES.
IT'S A COLLECTION OF INFORMATION THAT I THINK IS REQUIRED IF YOU'RE GOING TO COLLECT TECHNIQUES USED BY OTHER ONLINE SERVICE PROVIDERS.
>>THOMAS ROESSLER: COULD I MAKE A WORDING PROPOSAL WHICH MIGHT CAPTURE BOTH THE INTENT AND RESERVATIONS? COULD WE JUST INSERT THE WORDS "PUBLICLY AVAILABLE" IN FRONT OF THE WORD "INFORMATION" IN JEFF'S PROPOSED WORDING? THAT WOULD --
>>BRUCE TONKIN: PUBLICLY AVAILABLE INFORMATION. I THINK THAT'S FINE.
SO IT WOULD READ "COLLECT PUBLICLY AVAILABLE INFORMATION ON THE TECHNIQUES USED BY OTHER ONLINE SERVICE PROVIDERS, INCLUDING INFORMATION ON THE PRICE OF THE SERVICES PROVIDED TO VERIFY THAT DATA COLLECTED IS CORRECT."
>>MILTON MUELLER: I AGREE. THIS IS MILTON.
>>BRUCE TONKIN: MILTON, DID YOU WANT TO SPEAK?
>>MILTON MUELLER: YEAH. IN REGARD TO THE CURRENT TOPIC, I SUPPORT THIS AMENDMENT, BUT I JUST WANT TO NOTE THAT I HAVE TO GET OFF THE PHONE IN TEN MINUTES, AND WILL DELIVER MY PROXY TO CHUN AT THAT POINT.
>>JEFF NEUMAN: BRUCE, CAN YOU READ THAT? BECAUSE THE END OF IT SOUNDED -- INCLUDING PRICES?
>>BRUCE TONKIN: IT SAYS "COLLECT INFORMATION ON TECHNIQUES USED BY OTHER ONLINE SERVICE PROVIDERS, INCLUDING INFORMATION ON THE PRICE OF THE SERVICES PROVIDED BY THE ONLINE SERVICE PROVIDERS TO VERIFY THAT DATA COLLECTED IS CORRECT."
AND IN THE FIRST PART IT SHOULD SAY, "COLLECT PUBLICLY AVAILABLE INFORMATION."
>>JEFF NEUMAN: I THINK THE WAY YOU INSERTED THAT, THE PRICES -- IT MAY BE IMPLYING THE COST OF HOW MUCH IT -- OR HOW MUCH IT COST TO VERIFY THE DATA --
>>BRUCE TONKIN: NO. I SAID THE PRICE OF THE SERVICE.
>>JEFF NEUMAN: YEAH, BUT I THINK THE WORDING THAT YOU MODIFIED MAY MODIFY THE WORDS "VERIFY THE DATA" RATHER THAN -- THE CONCEPT IS RIGHT. I JUST THINK THE WORDING -- BECAUSE THE WORD "TO VERIFY THAT DATA COLLECTED IS CORRECT" AT THE END OF THAT SENTENCE --
>>BRUCE TONKIN: YEP.
>>JEFF NEUMAN: -- DOESN'T FIT NOW.
>>BRUCE TONKIN: CAN YOU READ OUT WHAT YOU THINK IT SHOULD SAY, PLEASE, JEFF.
>>JEFF NEUMAN: TO COLLECT PUBLICLY -- PUBLIC INFORMATION ON TECHNIQUES USED BY OTHER ONLINE SERVICE PROVIDERS TO -- WITH THE PARENTHETICAL (TO VERIFY THAT DATA COLLECTED IS CORRECT) AS WELL AS INFORMATION ON THE PRICE -- THE PRICES OF THE SERVICES OFFERED BY THE ONLINE SERVICE PROVIDER.
>>BRUCE TONKIN: YEP, THAT SOUNDS FINE. OKAY. WE'LL ADD THAT.
ANY OTHER SUGGESTED CHANGES? JORDYN.
>>JORDYN BUCHANAN: ONCE AGAIN, I JUST HAVE A QUICK QUESTION ABOUT DIFFERENTIATION, WHICH IS DO WE CARE -- IT'S NOT CLEAR TO ME THAT THERE'S ANY THAT WE -- THE TASK FORCE HAS ANY LATITUDE TO DECIDE THAT SOME INFORMATION OUGHT TO BE MORE CLOSELY VERIFIED THAN OTHERS IN TERMS OF THE DATA GATHERED. WHICH SEEMS TO MAKE -- LIKE WE MAY NOT CARE AT ALL ABOUT ADMIN CONTACTS BUT WE MIGHT CARE A LOT ABOUT REGISTRANTS.
>>BRUCE TONKIN: YEAH. I THINK THE PURPOSE OF THIS TASK FORCE IS JUST PURELY TO LOOK AT VERIFICATION TECHNIQUES TO IMPROVE ACCURACY, WHETHER IT'S POSTAL OR E-MAIL ADDRESS. AND THEN IT'S A SEPARATE ISSUE OF WHETHER YOU NEED TO COLLECT ACCURATE DATA FOR ADMIN CONTACT, FOR EXAMPLE. THAT WOULDN'T BE THE TOPIC OF THIS TASK FORCE.
>>JORDYN BUCHANAN: COULD THAT BE LISTED SOMETHING EXPLICITLY OUT OF SCOPE OF THE TASK FORCE IS DECIDING WHICH DATA ACTUALLY NEEDS TO BE VERIFIED?
>>BRUCE TONKIN: MARILYN HAS A RELATED QUESTION.
>>MARILYN CADE: ACTUALLY, MY QUESTION, THE QUESTION I WAS GOING TO ASK, AND IT MAY BE SIMILAR, JORDYN, TO YOURS, IS SHOULD THE TASK FORCE BE WORKING FROM, FOR INSTANCE, THE PRESENTATION YOU MADE EARLIER WHICH SHOWED WHICH ELEMENTS ARE REQUIRED AND WHICH ARE OPTIONAL? AND IT SEEMED TO ME THAT PERHAPS THAT OUGHT TO BE A BASE DOCUMENT THAT THE TASK FORCE WAS WORKING FROM.
>>BRUCE TONKIN: IT IS, YEAH. THE INTENT OF THIS TASK FORCE IS NOT ACTUALLY CHANGING THE DATA ELEMENTS, AND THAT'S WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO DO IS HAVE THREE FOCUSED GROUPS SO THAT THEY CAN FOCUS ON THE ISSUE OF DATA VERIFICATION, WHICH APPLIES NO MATTER WHAT THE DATA IS, REALLY. WHETHER IT'S A REGISTRANT OR AN ADMIN CONTACT, THEY BOTH HAVE AN E-MAIL ADDRESS. HOW DO YOU VERIFY AN E-MAIL ADDRESS IS KIND OF THE CONTEXT OF THIS DISCUSSION.
>>MARILYN CADE: IF THAT IS OUR INTENT, WHICH I THOUGHT IT WAS, I THINK IT ACTUALLY NEEDS TO BE STATED.
>>BRUCE TONKIN: I THINK -- I'M TRYING TO READ THE "OUT OF SCOPE" BIT.
IS SAYS THE TASK FORCE SHOULD NOT CONSIDER ISSUES ASSOCIATED WITH CHANGING THE DATA ELEMENTS THAT ARE COLLECTED. THIS IS THE SUBJECT OF A SEPARATE TASK FORCE.
THE TASK FORCE SHOULD NOT CONSIDER MECHANISMS FOR RESTRICTING THE PUBLIC DISPLAY FOR SOME DATA ELEMENTS WHICH MAY LEAD TO A REDUCTION IN THE PROVISION OF FALSE INFORMATION. THIS IS FOR A SEPARATE TASK FORCE.
IS THERE SOMETHING ELSE YOU WANT ME TO ADD TO THE ADD OF SCOPE.
>>MARILYN CADE: OTHERS MAY WANT TO COMMENT ON THIS BUT I THINK THE FACT THAT THERE IS A BASE DOCUMENT, YOU KNOW WHAT IT IS, BUT WE MAY END UP, IF WE HAVE MULTIPLE TASK FORCES, WITH MULTIPLE DIFFERENT PEOPLE FROM OUR CONSTITUENCIES WORKING ON THIS WHO AREN'T, YOU KNOW, NECESSARILY WELL BASED IN ALL OF THE BACKGROUND.
>>BRUCE TONKIN: OKAY. SO IN THE DESCRIPTION OF TASK FORCE I SHOULD EXPLICITLY REFERENCE THE REGISTRAR ACCREDITATION AGREEMENT.
>>MARILYN CADE: RIGHT.
>>JORDYN BUCHANAN: AND THAT'S NOT QUITE GETTING TO WHAT I WAS SAYING, WHICH IS WE MAY DECIDE THAT, IN THE LONGER TERM, I DON'T THINK IT'S RELEVANT TO THE CONTEXT OF THIS PARTICULAR TASK FORCE, WE MAY DECIDE IN THE LONGER TERM IT MAKES PERFECT SENSE TO VERIFY THE ADDRESS OF A REGISTRANT, AND MAYBE THAT COSTS $5 TO DO, BUT DO WE CARE ABOUT THE ADDRESS OF THE TECH CONTACT? PROBABLY NOT. WE CARE ABOUT HIS E-MAIL AND PHONE NUMBER. I WANT TO POINT OUT IT'S OUT OF SCOPE AS TO WHICH ELEMENTS SHOULD BE VERIFIED OR SHOULD NOT BE.
>>BRUCE TONKIN: SURE. I'LL PUT THAT IN IN "OUT OF SCOPE." THE SCOPE IS ASSUMING THAT ALL THE DATA COLLECTED NEEDS TO BE ACCURATE. IS THE ASSUMPTION. AND THEN -- PERHAPS TO PUT IT ANOTHER WAY, I THINK THE ASSUMPTION IS THAT ALL THE INFORMATION THAT NEEDS TO BE -- ALL THE INFORMATION THAT IS MANDATORY TO BE PROVIDED MUST BE ACCURATE, IS THE ASSUMPTION. AND THEN ANOTHER TASK FORCE MIGHT DECIDE TO CHANGE WHAT'S MANDATORY, BUT RIGHT NOW, WE HAVE A DEFINITION OF WHAT IS MANDATORY AND, IN FACT, THE CONTRACT SPECIFIES THAT THAT MANDATORY INFORMATION HAS TO BE ACCURATE.
SO THAT'S AN EXISTING CONTRACTUAL REQUIREMENT. AND THEN THIS TASK FORCE IS REALLY SAYING HOW DO YOU DO THAT.
SO I THINK PROBABLY EASIEST IS I'LL PUT A PARAGRAPH THERE IN THE DESCRIPTION TO REFER TO THE AGREEMENTS AND JUST STATE THAT THERE IS EXISTING INFORMATION THAT NEEDS TO BE PROVIDED WHICH IS MANDATORY, AND THAT THAT INFORMATION NEEDS TO BE ACCURATE. THAT THAT'S AN EXISTING CONTRACTUAL REQUIREMENT.
AND SO THE INTENT OF THIS TASK FORCE IS STARTING FROM THE CURRENT CONTRACT IN RESPECT TO THE DATA. AND THIS IS THEN -- AND THE CONTRACT REQUIRES THE DATA TO BE ACCURATE. BUT WHAT WE'RE HEARING FROM THE COMMUNITY IS THAT THE DATA IS NOT ACCURATE, AND SO THIS TASK FORCE IS TRYING TO ADDRESS THAT PROBLEM.
OKAY. ANY OTHER SUGGESTIONS? MILTON OR JEFF?
>>JORDYN BUCHANAN: BRUCE, I'M JUST -- I THINK IT'S STILL NOT 100 PERCENT.
WE SPECIFICALLY SAY IT'S OUT OF SCOPE WHICH DATA ELEMENTS ARE COLLECTED BUT WE DON'T SAY THAT IT'S OUT OF SCOPE TO DECIDE WHICH NEED TO BE -- WHICH ARE MANDATORY VERSUS NOT MANDATORY OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT. SO WE MIGHT COLLECT THINGS, GENERALLY SPEAKING --
>>BRUCE TONKIN: YES.
>>JORDYN BUCHANAN: -- BUT NOT NECESSARILY REQUIRE THEM OR REQUIRE THEM TO BE ACCURATE.
>>BRUCE TONKIN: YES.
>>JORDYN BUCHANAN: WHERE THIS SEEMS TO IMPLY EVERYTHING YOU COLLECT HAS TO BE ACCURATE.
>>BRUCE TONKIN: I'LL PUT THOSE WORDS IN IN THE CONTEXT OF THE --
>>JORDYN BUCHANAN: WHAT I AM SAYING IS THERE MAY BE THINGS THAT WE COLLECT THAT ARE NOT MANDATORY.
>>BRUCE TONKIN: SO OUT OF SCOPE, THEN, UNDER PARAGRAPH UNDER OUT OF SCOPE, IS THE TASK FORCE WILL NOT CONSIDER ACCURACY ISSUES FOR DATA THAT IS NOT MANDATORY.
>>JORDYN BUCHANAN: YEAH, THAT'S FINE.
>>BRUCE TONKIN: OKAY. MARILYN.
>>MARILYN CADE: I JUST WANT TO BE SURE THAT EVERYBODY UNDERSTANDS WHAT YOU JUST SAID, JORDYN, BECAUSE I'M NOT SURE, GIVEN THE EXCHANGE HERE, THAT NECESSARILY OTHER COUNSELORS WOULD CLEARLY UNDERSTAND THE IMPLICATIONS OF THIS.
SO I MIGHT ASK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN, IF YOU WOULD, JUST, FROM YOUR BEST MEMORY AND THE FACT YOU DID THIS PRESENTATION EARLIER, THE THING THAT I MIGHT REMEMBER AS ONE AREA OF INFORMATION WHICH IS OPTIONAL IS THE FAX NUMBER OF --
>>BRUCE TONKIN: IT'S NOT, ACTUALLY.
>>MARILYN CADE: AH.
>>BRUCE TONKIN: IT'S MANDATORY IF IT EXISTS.
>>MARILYN CADE: AH. THAT'S TRUE.
>>BRUCE TONKIN: IT'S QUITE DIFFERENT WORDING.
>>MARILYN CADE: THIS IS WHY I'M A LITTLE -- EVEN I AM A LITTLE CONFUSED, HAVING SAT THROUGH YOUR BRILLIANT PRESENTATION. EVEN I AM A LITTLE CONFUSED ABOUT WHICH DATA THIS WOULD REFER TO. BECAUSE IT SOUNDS TO ME LIKE I HAVE A -- I HAVE A REGISTRAR AGREEMENT AND IT SAYS IT IS MANDATORY THAT THE REGISTRANTS MUST PROVIDE ACCURATE DATA. AND SOME OF THE DATA ELEMENTS HAVE OPTIONAL BESIDE THEM, BUT MOST DON'T.
>>BRUCE TONKIN: YES.
>>MARILYN CADE: IF I WERE ON THIS TASK FORCE RIGHT NOW, I WOULD ASSUME I WOULD BE LOOKING AT HOW TO COLLECT DATA OF CURRENT TECHNIQUES OF HOW REGISTRARS AND OTHERS VERIFY ALL THAT DATA.
SO YOU'VE JUST THROWN ME, JORDYN, A BIT OF A WILD BALL.
I JUST ASKED YOU TO GIVE ME A COUPLE OF EXAMPLES.
>>JORDYN BUCHANAN: I THINK IT'S COMPLETELY EXTERNAL TO THIS GROUP TO DECIDE WHICH OF THOSE FIELDS OUGHT -- I THINK RIGHT NOW THERE'S PROBABLY WIDESPREAD AGREEMENT THAT SOMETHING LIKE THE FAX NUMBER MAYBE OUGHT NOT TO BE, IN FACT, MANDATORY. AND A SEPARATE TASK FORCE MAY DECIDE THAT THAT IS THE CASE. I'M JUST TRYING TO SUGGEST THAT THIS TASK FORCE OUGHT TO TAKE INTO ACCOUNT THAT IT SHOULD NOT BE DETERMINING WHICH FIELDS ARE MANDATORY, WHICH ARE NOT, AND IT SHOULD OPERATE UNDER THE SUPPOSITION THAT CERTAIN DATA ELEMENTS THAT ARE COLLECTED MIGHT NOT ACTUALLY BE -- IT MIGHT BE IMPORTANT TO VERIFY THE TELEPHONE NUMBER BUT NOT THE FAX NUMBER, FOR EXAMPLE.
>>MARILYN CADE: IS THAT WHAT YOU SAID? BECAUSE THAT IS NOT WHAT I TOOK YOUR STATEMENT TO --
>>BRUCE TONKIN: MY STATEMENT, AND I'LL READ IT AGAIN, IS THAT THE TASK FORCE WILL NOT CONSIDER THE ACCURACY OF DATA THAT IS NOT MANDATORY. THAT'S THE STATEMENT.
NOW, THEN YOU'RE SORT OF SAYING WHAT DOES THAT INCLUDE. FOR EXAMPLE, PASSWORD IS NOT MANDATORY, AUTHENTICATION. REGISTRARS MIGHT BE CONCERNED WITH THAT BUT THEY HAVE THEIR OWN PROCESSES FOR THAT ANYWAY. SO I GUESS THIS TASK FORCE WOULDN'T BE SAYING "HOW DO I MAKE SURE THAT THE PASSWORD IS ACCURATE?"
BUT PHONE NUMBER IS ONE OF THE MANDATORY ELEMENTS SOMEWHERE, REGARDLESS OF WHICH CONTACT IT IS. PHONE NUMBER IS A MANDATORY ELEMENT. SO WE WOULD NEED TO CONSIDER HOW WE COLLECT THAT ACCURATELY.
>>JORDYN BUCHANAN: BRUCE, COULD WE AMEND THAT TO SAY THEY WON'T CONSIDER WHICH ELEMENT -- THE ACCURACY OF ELEMENTS THAT ARE NOT MANDATORY NOR OF WHICH ELEMENTS ARE MANDATORY OR NOT? I JUST WANT TO MAKE IT CLEAR -- THE IDEA HERE IS TO GET TECHNIQUES. THE IDEA IS NOT TO FIGURE OUT --
>>BRUCE TONKIN: THAT'S FINE. I LIKE THAT.
SO THE TASK FORCE WILL NOT CONSIDER THE ACCURACY FOR DATA THAT IS NOT MANDATORY, AND WILL NOT CONSIDER WHICH ELEMENTS SHOULD BE MANDATORY.
OKAY. ANY OTHER SUGGESTIONS?
OKAY. LAST CALL, JEFF OR MILTON?
>>>: NO.
>>BRUCE TONKIN: OKAY. I'D LIKE TO PUT THIS TERMS OF REFERENCE TO A VOTE. I'LL JUST GET MY LIST OF VOTERS. STARTING WITH PHILIP SHEPPARD.
>>PHILIP SHEPPARD: I VOTE YES.
>>BRUCE TONKIN: MARILYN CADE.
>>MARILYN CADE: YES.
>>BRUCE TONKIN: (INAUDIBLE).
>>MARILYN CADE: YES.
>>BRUCE TONKIN: JEFF NEUMAN.
>>>: YES.
>>BRUCE TONKIN: CARY KARP.
>>>: YES.
>>BRUCE TONKIN: JORDYN.
>>>: YES.
>>BRUCE TONKIN: TONY HARRIS.
>>>: YES.
>>BRUCE TONKIN: TONY HOLMES.
>>>: YES.
>>BRUCE TONKIN: GREG RUTH?
>>>: YES.
>>BRUCE TONKIN: CHUN?
>>>: YES.
>>BRUCE TONKIN: MILTON. I THINK MILTON HAS GIVEN HIS PROXY TO YOU.
>>CHUN EUNG HWI: YES.
>>BRUCE TONKIN: AND GABRIEL.
>>>: YES.
>>BRUCE TONKIN: KEN STUBBS?
>>>: YES.
>>BRUCE TONKIN: THOMAS KELLER.
>>>: YES.
>>BRUCE TONKIN: I'LL VOTE YES.
NIKLAS.
>>>: YES.
>>BRUCE TONKIN: YOU'RE LOSING YOUR VOICE.
ELLEN.
>>ELLEN SHANKMAN: YES, AND YES FOR LINDA.
>>BRUCE TONKIN: OKAY. AMADEU.
>>AMADEU ABRIL I ABRIL: YES.
>>BRUCE TONKIN: DEMI?
>>DEMI GETSCHKO: YES.
>>BRUCE TONKIN: ALICK?
>>ALICK WILSON: YES.
>>BRUCE TONKIN: OKAY. THAT ONE IS UNANIMOUS. THANK YOU FOR YOUR ASSISTANCE IN THE DRAFTING.
THE CHALLENGE WILL BE FOR GLEN TO ACTUALLY COLLECT ALL THIS BUT LUCKILY WE HAVE A TRANSCRIPT OF THIS MEETING.
OKAY. THE NEXT ITEM OF THE AGENDA, THEN, IS THE ISSUE OF WHETHER WE CONSIDER THESE THREE AREAS -- HOW WE HANDLE THESE THREE AREAS, AND THE OPTIONS ARE BASICALLY WE CAN WORK ON THESE AS A COUNCIL AS A WHOLE, THE COUNCIL CAN CHOOSE TO FORM A TASK FORCE, IT COULD CHOOSE TO FORM ONE TASK FORCE TO DEAL WITH ALL THREE AREAS, IT COULD CHOOSE TWO TASK FORCES OR IT COULD CHOOSE THREE TASK FORCES.
PROBABLY THE MOST VIABLE OPTIONS ARE TO EITHER HAVE A SINGLE TASK FORCE REPORTING TO THE COUNCIL OR HAVE THREE TASK FORCES REPORTING TO COUNCIL.
THAT'S WHAT WE HAVE BEFORE US, AND I THINK MARILYN HAS RAISED THAT WE SHOULD ALSO CONSIDER THIS QUESTION IN THE CONTEXT OF WHAT ELSE WE WILL BE NEEDING TO ADDRESS.
WHAT'S CURRENTLY, I GUESS, ON THE HORIZON FOR, SAY, THE NEXT SIX TO 12 MONTHS SEEMS TO BE THESE AREAS REGARDING WHOIS, THE INTRODUCTION OF NEW TLDS, REGISTRY SERVICES, AND UDRP. AND WE DO NEED TO CONSIDER, I GUESS, THE PRIORITIZATION OF BOTH THE COUNCIL RESOURCES AND THE ICANN STAFF RESOURCES WITH RESPECT TO THOSE VARIOUS AREAS.
PERHAPS WE SHOULD START THE DISCUSSION WITH JUST A VIEW ON HOW WE SHOULD MANAGE ALL OF THOSE AREAS AND WHETHER WE SHOULD ATTEMPT TO DO ALL OF THEM AT ONCE OR WHETHER WE SHOULD TRY AND PRIORITIZE.
AND I'LL GET TO MARILYN TO SPEAK TO THIS FIRST BECAUSE I KNOW IT'S AN ISSUE SHE'S RAISED, AND THEN I'LL ASK OTHERS.
>>MARILYN CADE: AND I WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK TO IT IN A BROAD WAY. WE HAVE NOT DISCUSSED SOME OF THE OTHER ISSUES, BUT --
>>>: MARILYN, COULD YOU TALK INTO THE MIKE.
>>MARILYN CADE: SORRY. CAN'T HEAR ME?
>>BRUCE TONKIN: JUST A BIT CLOSER.
>>MARILYN CADE: WE HAVE BEFORE US A DEADLINE THAT HAS BEEN ESTABLISHED RELATED TO ADDRESSING NEW REGISTRY SERVICES, AND IF I CAN -- THAT IS, IN FACT, A WILD BALL THAT ARRIVED WITHOUT OUR EXPECTING IT, SO IT IS ON OUR PLATES TO DEAL WITH. AND IT HAS TO BE GIVEN PRIORITY TO DEAL WITH, IT SEEMS TO ME. I THINK WE'VE ALL PRETTY MUCH ACCEPTED THAT AS A REALITY.
THE DEADLINE OF JANUARY THE 15TH I HAVE PROBLEMS WITH IN TERMS OF THE FEASIBILITY OF MEETING THAT, BUT REGARDLESS OF WHETHER IT'S JANUARY THE 15TH OR JANUARY THE 20TH OR 30TH, STILL, WE BEGIN TODAY AND WE CONTINUE WORKING ON THAT. THAT WILL BE A PREOCCUPATION I BELIEVE OF EVERY MEMBER OF COUNCIL WHO WILL WANT TO BE INVOLVED IN THAT.
SO THAT IS A MAJOR WORK ITEM TO CONSIDER.
WE HAVE THE ISSUE OF UDRP AND HYPOTHETICALLY THERE'S BEEN NO DISCUSSION ON THIS, PERHAPS THAT IS ONE PDP THAT COULD BE POSTPONED FOR SOME TIME UNLESS THERE'S A NUMBER OF BURNING ISSUES RELATED TO THAT THAT HAVE TO BE ADDRESSED NOW.
WE HAVE WHOIS AND HOW MANY AND HOW WE GET THE WORK OF WHOIS DONE.
WE HAVE ALSO THE ISSUE OF THE PROCESS OF NEW GTLDS. GIVEN THAT OUR DEADLINE ON THAT IS SEPTEMBER OF NEXT YEAR, PERHAPS THAT COULD BE -- WE COULD REACH AN AGREEMENT THAT THE SIGNIFICANT LAUNCH OF THAT WORK ON OUR PART COULD BE BEGUN AT THE END -- OR THE CONCLUSION OF THE NEW REGISTRY SERVICES. SO THAT WOULD BE SORT OF A SERIAL APPROACH TO THAT PARTICULAR PROBLEM.
THOSE ARE JUST THE THINGS THAT I KNOW WE HAVE IMMEDIATELY, AND I KNOW THAT A COUPLE OF THE CONSTITUENCIES MAY WANT TO RAISE OTHER ISSUES THAT THEY CONSIDER OF SOME PRIORITY TO TRY TO ADDRESS VIA PDP AS WELL.
>>BRUCE TONKIN: THANKS, MARILYN. I GUESS MY VIEW ON THE PRIORITY ISSUES IS PROBABLY WE'VE GOT A TIGHT DEADLINE THAT'S BEEN IMPOSED BUT -- WE ACTUALLY SAY IT'S IMPOSED BUT IT IS, IN FACT, IN THE BYLAWS THAT THERE IS A 90-DAY PROCESS.
WE HAVE THE WHOIS ISSUES, WE HAVE UDRP, WE HAVE NEW GTLDS, AND THERE COULD BE SOME OTHERS THAT ARISE.
MY FEELING IS THAT PERHAPS THE REGISTRY SERVICES WOULD BE PRIORITY NUMBER ONE FOR THE REMAINDER OF THE YEAR. THEN WE HAVE WHOIS, WHICH CAN START PROBABLY IN PARALLEL, PARTICULARLY IN TERMS OF DATA COLLECTION.
THEN WE HAVE THE NEW GTLD ISSUE, AND MY FEELING IS THAT ICANN IS IN THE PROCESS OF DOING SOME MORE WORK IN THAT, INCLUDING A CONSULTANT IS DOING AN EVALUATION OF THE OLD -- OF THE CURRENT GTLDS FROM THE LAST ROUND, AND THE POLICY PROCESS SHOULD PROBABLY TAKE THAT INTO ACCOUNT.
SO MY FEELING IS THAT THAT PARTICULAR WORK COULD START I WOULD SAY PERHAPS SECOND QUARTER NEXT YEAR. AND THEN UDRP IS PROBABLY THE LOWER OF THOSE, JUST IN MY PERCEPTION FROM HEARING THE AMOUNT OF LOBBYING I GET ON THE DIFFERENT ISSUES. THAT'S JUST A PERSONAL VIEW.
WOULD OTHERS LIKE TO PERHAPS JUST COMMENT ON THAT GENERAL PRIORITY ORDER, WHICH IS SORT OF SAYING, BASICALLY, REGISTRY SERVICES, WHOIS, NEW GTLDS, AND, FINALLY, UDRP IN THE SORT OF CURRENT ORDER? PHILIP.
>>PHILIP SHEPPARD: MR. CHAIRMAN, I'M DELIGHTED TO SAY THAT WHILE YOU WERE TALKING, I HAD ALREADY MADE MY OWN PRIORITY LIST, AND I FIND IT COINCIDES WITH YOURS IN EVERY ELEMENT.
>>BRUCE TONKIN: OKAY. OTHER COMMENTS? ELLEN?
>>ELLEN SHANKMAN: I AGREE WITH YOU THAT THE UDRP CAN BE PUT LAST ON THE LIST. THE ONLY THING I'D LIKE TO ADD IS -- AND MARILYN SAID, IT'S TRUE, I WAS GOING TO SAVE IT FOR NEW BUSINESS, BUT THERE IS ANOTHER ISSUE I'D LIKE TO PUT ON THE LIST TO BE CONSIDERED SERIOUSLY FOR HIGHER UP IN THE ORDER OF PRIORITY AND THAT'S THE ISSUE OF ENFORCEMENT.
>>BRUCE TONKIN: OKAY.
CHUN.
>>CHUN EUNG HWI: I'D LIKE TO EMPHASIZE -- AND I'D LIKE TO REMIND YOU -- THAT IN OUR LAST EXPERIENCE OF OUR LAST TASK FORCE HAVE DEALT WITH THIS PRIVACY RELATED ISSUES IN WHOIS.
AND AT THAT TIME, AT THE LAST STAGE, OUR CONSTITUENCY MEMBER ADDRESSED ONE SERIOUS QUESTION.
IT HAS RELATED WITH THE TIME SPAN OR THE ORDER OF THE ISSUE TO BE TAKEN.
BECAUSE AT THAT TIME, ACCURACY ISSUE WANTED TO BE SEPARATED INTO TWO -- SEPARATED FROM PRIVACY ISSUES.
AT THAT TIME, ONE CONSENSUS WAS PRIVACY ISSUES CAN BE REVIEWED LATER, AFTER THE ACCURACY HAS BEEN DONE.
THEN THE PROBLEM IS, THOSE TWO ISSUES HAVE CLOSE RELATIONS, AND ALSO WE SHOULD TAKE INTO ACCOUNT PRIVACY ISSUES FIRST.
SO I'D LIKE TO SAY THIS KIND OF RELATIONS REQUIRES SOME KIND OF SEPARATED DISCUSSIONS AND THINKING.
SO I'D LIKE TO HAVE THREE SEPARATE TASK FORCES.
AND ALSO WE SHOULD PUT DOWN SOME TIMETABLE SEPARATELY TO THOSE THREE TASK FORCES.
IN MY VIEW, THE FIRST TASK FORCE, WHICH IS DEALING WITH THE BULK OF THIS, THAT DEMANDS SOME KIND OF TECHNOLOGY-CENTERED CONCERNS.
AND ALSO SECOND ONE IS DEMANDING SOME PRIVACY-CENTERED EXPERTISE.
AND THE LAST ONE HAS SOME COMPLEX OF EXPERTISES.
SO WE SHOULD SEPARATE THOSE THREE FIELDS.
I THINK THOSE ISSUES ARE NATURALLY PROPOSED INTO THAT SPECIFIED ITEMS BY THE COMMITTEE.
SO MY CONSTITUENCY MEMBERS WANT TO HAVE A SEPARATE THREE TASK FORCES AND ALSO WE SHOULD ALLOCATE SOME SPECIFIC TIMETABLE FOR THOSE TASK FORCES.
IT COULD BE ONE SOLUTION.
>>BRUCE TONKIN: TONY, GO AHEAD.
>>TONY HOLMES: WELL, FOR THE ISPS, THE FIRST THING THAT I WOULD SAY IS THE PRIORITY ORDER ALIGNS WITH WHAT YOU STATED.
SO WE WOULD SUPPORT THAT.
IN TERMS OF THE COMMENT THAT CHUN HAS MADE, WE WOULD PREFER TO SEE ONE TASK FORCE.
AND WE THINK THAT MAYBE YOU COULD BREAK THAT DOWN INTO A NUMBER OF WORKING GROUPS AND DO IT THAT WAY BUT DON'T SEE THE NEED FOR SEPARATE TASK FORCES FOR EACH ONE.
>>BRUCE TONKIN: OKAY.
JORDYN, THEN THOMAS, THEN NIKLAS.
JORDYN, GO AHEAD.
>>JORDYN BUCHANAN: YEAH.
AS I INDICATED IN MY E-MAIL TO THE COUNCIL ON THIS SUBJECT, I'M A LITTLE PERPLEXED AS TO WHY WE'RE REVISITING THIS SUBJECT.
I THOUGHT WE HAD, IN CHARTER -- IN CREATING THE STEERING GROUP IN THE FIRST PLACE, DONE SO UNDER THE SUPPOSITION THAT IT WOULD CREATE TERMS OF REFERENCES FOR VARIOUS TASK FORCES, IN THE PLURAL, NOT A SINGLE TASK FORCE.
AND IF OUR GOAL WAS TO MAKE A BIG WHOIS TASK FORCE AGAIN, THAT WE WOULD HAVE CHARTERED A WHOIS TASK FORCE AND HAD THEM SORT OF DEAL WITH ISSUES SERIALLY AND MAYBE HAD SUBGROUPS OR WHATEVER WORKING UNDER IT.
SO WE SEEM NOW TO BE DEVIATING SOMEWHAT FROM OUR INTENT IN CHARTERING THE STEERING GROUP, AS FAR AS I UNDERSTOOD IT.
SECONDLY, BEYOND THAT, I JUST, GIVING THAT I THINK EVEN THE SECOND TASK FORCE IN AND OF ITSELF HAS PLENTY OF WORK TO IMAGINE POSSIBLY BE GETTING DONE WITHIN THE 90-DAY TIME FRAME ALLOCATED TO US BY THE PDP, I CAN'T IMAGINE HOW WE WOULD AMALGAMATE THE WORK INTO A HUGE (INAUDIBLE) TASK FORCE THAT WE SOMEHOW WOULD IMAGINE TO BE MORE EFFICIENT OR MORE EFFECTIVE AT RESOLVING THE CONCERNS IN THE TIME LIMITS CONSTRAINED UPON US BY THE NEW PDP.
I'M THE FIRST TO SAY THAT I DON'T THINK THOSE TIM LIMITS ARE PARTICULARLY REALISTIC.
BUT WE OUGHT TO STRIVE TO DO THAT WORK ONCE A TASK FORCE HAS BEEN CHARTERED IN ORDER TO AVOID BEING BAGGED DOWN.
I DON'T THINK IT'S POSSIBLE WITH SUCH A BIG TASK FORCE WITH SUCH A BROAD MANDATE.
>>BRUCE TONKIN: THANKS, JORDYN.
I GUESS JUST ONE COMMENT I WOULD MAKE, ONE, IN TERMS OF RESOURCING, IS, IF WE HAVE THESE -- WE HAVE THREE GROUPS OR THREE AREAS, I THINK WE WILL NEED, AS CHUN POINTED OUT, PEOPLE WITH SPECIFIC EXPERTISE IN EACH OF THOSE AREAS.
SO IN TERMS OF THE RESOURCING, I'M EXPECTING MOST CONSTITUENCIES WOULD NEED TO PROVIDE THREE RESOURCES TO THAT AREA.
AND THEN IT COMES DOWN TO HOW WE MANAGE THE ACTIVITY.
IN TERMS OF THE TIME FRAMES THAT CHUN SUGGESTED, MY FEELING IS, RATHER THAN THE COUNCIL AT THIS STAGE TRYING TO DICTATE A TIMETABLE, IF WE WERE TO FORM -- WHETHER WE FORM ONE TASK FORCE OR THREE, I WOULD BE REQUESTING THE GROUPS TO COME BACK WITH A SUGGESTED TIMETABLE FOR THE COUNCIL TO CONSIDER.
BECAUSE JUST FROM AN ENGINEERING EXPERIENCE, THE LAST THING YOU WANT IS SOMEBODY IMPOSING A DEADLINE ON YOU WHEN YOU HAVE YET TO REALLY DETERMINE WHAT RESOURCES YOU HAVE, YOU KNOW, WHAT ARE -- WE DON'T CLEARLY KNOW AT THIS STAGE HOW MANY STAFF RESOURCES THAT WE'LL HAVE AVAILABLE OR EVEN IF WE HAVE ONE PERSON ALLOCATED, WHETHER THAT PERSON WILL HAVE OTHER TASKS.
SO WE WOULD NEED A LOT MORE DATA TO SET A STRICT TIMETABLE.
AND I WOULD BE SUGGESTING THE FIRST TASK OF THE TASK FORCE OR TASK FORCES WOULD BE TO COME BACK TO THE COUNCIL WITH A SUGGESTED TIMETABLE ONCE THEY KNOW WHAT THEIR RESOURCES ARE.
OKAY.
THOMAS, YOU WERE NEXT.
>>THOMAS ROESSLER: I WOULD ALSO RECOMMEND THE APPROACH OF USING THREE DIFFERENT TASK FORCES WHOSE CHAIRS DIRECTLY REPORT BACK TO THE GNSO COUNCIL.
THE APPROACH OF HAVING ONE LARGE WORKING GROUP ATTACK A NUMBER OF ISSUES WILL BASICALLY MEAN THAT SUBGROUPS OF THIS WORKING GROUP WILL TAKE THE ROLE OF TASK FORCES AND THAT THAT WORKING GROUP'S CHAIR WILL BEAR THE RESPONSIBILITY AND THE WORKLOAD WHICH BELONGS TO THREE CHAIRS AND THE COUNCIL AS A WHOLE.
I FAIL TO SEE THE BENEFIT THAT ONE WORKING GROUP OFFERS OVER THREE TASK FORCES.
AND I BELIEVE THAT THE THREE TASK FORCES APPROACH IS SIMPLER, EASIER TO MANAGE, AND, IN PARTICULAR, MUCH MORE TRANSPARENT FOR PARTICIPANTS ALL OVER THAN THE ONE WORKING GROUP APPROACH.
>>BRUCE TONKIN: OKAY.
NIKLAS.
AND THEN --
>>NIKLAS LAGERGREN: THANK YOU, CHAIRMAN.
SORRY ABOUT MY VOICE.
I MIGHT HAVE TO GIVE A PROXY TO SOMEONE SOON MAYBE.
IN PRINCIPLE, OUT OF THE TWO OPTIONS, I WOULD PERSONALLY FAVOR THE ONE TASK FORCE WITH THREE WORKING GROUPS.
THE REASON BEING THAT I BELIEVE THAT THERE ARE LOTS OF OVERLAPS BETWEEN THE VARIOUS ISSUES WHICH ARE LISTED IN TEXT 1, 2, 3 OF THE TERMS OF REFERENCE.
BUT NOW I THINK WE SHOULDN'T FOCUS TOO MUCH ON PROCESS, AND SUBSTANCE THAT MATTERS ABOVE ALL.
SO IF PEOPLE HAVE STRONG ISSUES ABOUT THE IDEA OF ONE TASK FORCE WITH THREE WORKING GROUPS IN COMMUNICATION, I GUESS IT'S -- BUT IN PRINCIPLE, I WOULD FAVOR ONE TASK FORCE AND THREE WORKING GROUPS.
>>BRUCE TONKIN: SO YOU'RE SAYING THAT YOU WOULD FAVOR ONE TASK FORCE, BUT IT'S NOT A BIG ISSUE?
IS THAT IT?
>>NIKLAS LAGERGREN: WELL, IT'S AN ISSUE, BUT, YEAH, I COULD LIVE WITH THREE TASK FORCES.
>>BRUCE TONKIN: OKAY.
IT'S A MEDIUM ISSUE.
GO AHEAD.
>>ELLEN SHANKMAN: I'M GOING TO BE PART OF HIS PROXY VOICE HERE.
IT'S NOT A BIG ISSUE AS MUCH AS OUR CONCERN THAT THE COMMUNICATION BETWEEN THE GROUPS IN RECOGNIZING THAT IT'S OVERLAPPING, WHATEVER THE EFFICIENCY OF -- WE ACTUALLY THINK MANY OF THE ISSUES OVERLAP AND THE GROUPS WORK TOGETHER TO UNDERSTAND WHERE THE ISSUES TOUCH ONE ANOTHER.
>>BRUCE TONKIN: I THINK THAT'S VERY WELL STATED.
AND IT'S CERTAINLY THE INTENT IN THE WAY I DRAFTED THE TERMS OF THE DESCRIPTIONS OF WORK WAS THAT THERE SHOULD BE SOME LIAISON BETWEEN THE TWO.
BUT I THINK THE EXPERIENCE THAT WE'VE HAD AND ALSO THE THINGS THAT PAUL TWOMEY MENTIONED THIS MORNING IS THAT IT'S EXTREMELY IMPORTANT TO COORDINATE THE ACTIVITY ON WHOIS.
AND IT PROBABLY NEEDS TO BE MORE THAN JUST AN INDIVIDUAL FROM ONE GROUP TALKING TO ANOTHER GROUP.
AND WE FOUND THIS -- I GUESS WE HAD A -- WE'VE HAD SESSIONS BETWEEN THE MEMBERS OF THE BOARD AND THE MEMBERS OF THE COUNCIL SIMILARLY.
BECAUSE IF IT WAS JUST ME AS THE CHAIR OF THE COUNCIL TALKING TO THE CHAIR OF THE BOARD, YOU DON'T NECESSARILY GET THE FULL NUANCES OF THE ISSUES.
SO I THINK THERE WILL BE TIME, AND THIS IS SOMETHING THAT THE COUNCIL COULD MANAGE, IS THAT THE COUNCIL COULD REQUEST THAT MAYBE EVERY THREE OR FOUR MEETINGS, THAT THE GROUPS GET TOGETHER AS A WHOLE AND DISCUSS THEIR PROGRESS SO FAR SO THAT THERE IS REGULAR CONTACT BETWEEN THE GROUPS.
PHILIP.
>>PHILIP SHEPPARD: THANKS.
I THINK -- I SUPPORT EXACTLY THE COMMENTS YOU WERE SAYING AND THE SENTIMENT THAT ELLEN WAS MAKING JUST THEN.
FOR ME, THE KEY QUESTION IS, WHERE WILL BE THE LEVEL OF COORDINATION?
DO WE WANT THE COORDINATION TO BE AT THE LEVEL OF A WORKING GROUP, OR WHATEVER WE CALL IT?
OR DO WE WANT THE COORDINATION TO BE AT THE LEVEL OF THE COUNCIL.
MY FEELING IS THAT FROM PROCESS, YOU STILL NEED THE WORKING GROUP LEVEL IN ORDER FOR IT TO BE MEANINGFUL SO THAT WHAT IS PRESENTED TO US IS IMPORTANT.
SO THAT LEADS ME INEVITABLY TO THE CONCLUSION THAT THE SINGLE TASK FORCE BUT WITH DIFFERENT ELEMENTS TO IT IS A BETTER APPROACH FROM THE WAY THAT WE WOULD COORDINATE THIS.
BUT I DON'T THINK THE TWO APPROACHES ARE SO DIFFERENT, BECAUSE THEN THE QUESTION IS, IS REALLY ONE OF RESOURCE FROM EACH OF OUR CONSTITUENCIES.
AND ARE WE THEN GOING TO TACKLE THOSE THREE TASKS IN FRONT OF US THAT WE'VE JUST APPROVED IN PARALLEL OR IN SERIES WITHIN THAT STRUCTURE?
AND MY SUGGESTION WOULD BE THAT, IN PARTICULAR, WITH 2 AND 3, THEY HAVE ELEMENTS WHICH HAVE A MUCH GREATER OVERLAP AND AN INTERDEPENDENCE.
AND I CAN SEE ALSO A TIMING ISSUE, WHERE BY TAKING 2 AND THEN 3 MIGHT BE APPROPRIATE.
SO I THINK WE PROBABLY NEED TO ASK CONSTITUENCIES IN TERMS OF RESOURCING FIRST, ARE THEY ABLE TO HANDLE, SAY, TWO SEPARATE WORKING GROUPS WITHIN A SINGLE TASK FORCE IN ORDER TO -- AT THE SAME TIME.
BECAUSE I THINK 1 COULD BE DONE IN PARALLEL WITH 2 AND THEN 3, BUT I WOULDN'T SUGGEST 3 TOGETHER FROM EITHER THE TIMING PROCESS NEEDED IN ISSUE NOR FROM THE RESOURCE POINT OF VIEW OF CONSTITUENCIES.
>>BRUCE TONKIN: THE RESULT, REALLY, AT THE STEERING GROUP DISCUSSION WAS THAT I THINK PEOPLE FELT THAT IT WOULD BE NICE NOT TO HAVE TO DO THREE AT ONCE.
BUT PEOPLE COULDN'T COME TO AN AGREEMENT AT THAT POINT, THEN, AS TO WHICH ORDER YOU WOULD DO THEM.
AND THERE WAS VERY STRONG FEELINGS EITHER WAY.
AND SO I GUESS THE CONSENSUS POSITION AT THE STEERING GROUP LEVEL WAS THAT THE THREE ACTIVITIES SHOULD OCCUR IN PARALLEL, AND THEN THE ISSUE THEN COMES DOWN TO -- DID YOU WANT TO COMMENT, MARILYN?
>>MARILYN CADE: I THINK -- I THINK THAT THE SENTIMENT AT THE STEERING GROUP WAS ENSURING THAT ALL THREE ISSUES WERE ADDRESSED.
AND I THINK IT COULD BE -- I THINK PHILIP'S SUGGESTION SOUNDED TO ME LIKE IT WAS POSSIBLY A COMPROMISE THAT THE STEERING GROUP MIGHT BE ENCOURAGED TO CONSIDER, WHICH, IF I COULD RESTATE IT -- I'M NOT -- BECAUSE I'M JUST HEARING IT FOR THE FIRST TIME MYSELF -- I THINK YOU WERE SUGGESTING THAT A TASK FORCE DO 1, AND THAT THAT SEEMED RELATIVELY STREAMLINED AND UNDOUBTEDLY COULD BE DONE WELL WITHIN THE 90-DAY PERIOD.
AND A DIFFERENT GROUP DO 2 FIRST AND THEN GO ON AND DO 3 IN SERIAL.
>>PHILIP SHEPPARD: YES.
>>MARILYN CADE: SO IT WOULD BE TWO TASK FORCES AND ONE TASK FORCE WOULD HAVE TWO EXTENSIONS BECAUSE YOU WERE PERCEIVING THAT 2 AND 3 ARE LINKED IN TERMS OF EXPERTISE AND --
>>BRUCE TONKIN: THE EXPERTISE IN 2 AND 3 ARE QUITE DIFFERENT.
>>MARILYN CADE: I'M NOT SURE EXPERTISE IS THE TERM I AM SAYING.
BUT THE EXPERIENCE FROM 2 SEEMS TO BE -- THE OUTCOME OF 2 SEEMS TO BE LINKED TO 3.
AND I'M NOT QUITE SURE HOW YOU WOULD DO 2 AND 3 SEPARATELY.
>>BRUCE TONKIN: I DISAGREE.
THAT WOULD DRAFT --
>>MARILYN CADE: THIS TAKES US BACK TO THE STEERING GROUP.
>>BRUCE TONKIN: IT DOES.
AND THE STEERING GROUP DISCUSSION, THAT WAS THE ORIGINAL -- THE FIRST TELECONFERENCE MORE OR LESS CAME TO THAT CONCLUSION, THAT WE COULD DO 1 AND 2, AND THEN 3.
BUT THERE WAS VERY STRONG VIEW, PARTICULARLY FROM THE INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY MEMBER, THAT ACCURACY WAS AN IMPORTANT ISSUE, AND THE CONCERN WAS THAT IF WE DEALT WITH IT IN SERIAL, ACCURACY WOULDN'T BE DEALT WITH UNTIL 2005, EXAGGERATING A BIT, BUT IT WOULD BE DEALT WITH AT SOME LATER TIME.
AND THEN THE ISSUE WAS, WELL, PERHAPS ACCURACY SHOULD COME FIRST BECAUSE IT WAS ONE OF THE HIGH-PRIORITY ISSUES.
AND THEN MEMBERS THAT WERE CONCERNED ABOUT PRIVACY WERE CONCERNED THAT THEIR ISSUE WOULD BE, IN TURN, DELAYED.
SO I GUESS WHAT I THOUGHT THE FAIREST APPROACH WAS, TO SAY THAT WE SHOULD TREAT EACH OF THOSE AS SEPARATE GROUPS, BUT THAT -- AND WHAT I'M SUGGESTING NOW IS, IF THE COUNCIL DID DECIDE TO CREATE THREE SEPARATE TASK FORCES, THEY CAN SET THEIR OWN TIME LINES, AND THE CONSTITUENCY MEMBERS OF THOSE TASK FORCES, IF A CONSTITUENCY OR A GROUP OF MEMBERS IS ABLE TO DEVOTE THE RESOURCES, THEY MAY BE ABLE TO DO 3 ON A FAST TIME TRACK.
AND THAT WOULD BE DEPENDENT ON THE RESOURCES THAT THAT PARTICULAR GROUP HAD.
IF GROUP 2 FINDS THAT IT'S GOT REALLY ENTHUSIASTIC PEOPLE THAT ARE PREPARED TO MEET EVERY DAY, AS OPPOSED TO ONCE A WEEK, THAT MAY WELL MOVE VERY QUICKLY AS WELL.
SO MY FEELING WAS TO BREAK THE INTERDEPENDENCIES AND SAY YOU HAVE THREE GROUPS, FORM THOSE GROUPS, AND THEN THE GROUP OF INDIVIDUALS THAT FORM THAT GROUP THEN MEET TOGETHER TO DECIDE THE TIMETABLE THAT THEY BELIEVE IS ACHIEVABLE.
THAT WAS, I GUESS, MY SUGGESTION TO -- OTHERWISE I THINK WE'RE GOING TO GET INTO A VERY DIFFICULT DEBATE AS TO WHICH COMES FIRST.
AND WE'VE ALSO GOT THE ISSUE THAT SOME OF THESE TASK FORCES, I THINK, ARE NATURALLY DIFFERENT TIME FRAMES.
AND I THINK TASK FORCE 1 COULD OCCUR ON A MUCH FASTER TIME FRAME.
AND I THINK IF WE HAVE THE RIGHT EXPERTISE OF CONSTITUENCY MEMBERS ON THAT, THEY SHOULD COME BACK AND SAY, "YES, WE CAN COMPLETE SOMETHING MAYBE BY JANUARY OR FEBRUARY OR SOMETHING."
TASK FORCE 2 MIGHT SAY, "OKAY, THIS IS ACTUALLY A VERY BIG ITEM OF WORK.
WE MAY NOT BE COMPLETE UNTIL JULY OR SOMETHING."
WHATEVER.
AND I THINK -- I'M JUST PULLING THINGS OUT OF THIN AIR HERE.
BUT JUST TRYING TO ILLUSTRATE THAT THOSE GROUPS COULD HAVE QUITE DIFFERENT TIMETABLES.
AND I WOULD RATHER LET THE GROUP DEFINE THE TIMETABLE.
YEP, PHILIP.
>>PHILIP SHEPPARD: I'M PERSUADED BY THAT IF THAT'S GOING TO HELP IN TERMS OF REACHING A COMPROMISE ON COUNCIL, I THINK WE WOULD DO OUR BEST ENDEAVORS AS THE B.C. TO RESOURCE THREE GROUPS, IF NECESSARY.
>>BRUCE TONKIN: AND, YOU KNOW, I THINK I MUST STRESS THAT THE COUNCIL IS ENTIRELY RELIANT ON VOLUNTEERS.
AND THE SPEED AT WHICH GROUPS CAN MOVE IS OFTEN LIMITED BY THE TIME AVAILABLE FROM THE VOLUNTEERS ON THESE GROUPS.
SO -- IF YOU HAVE THE GROUP OF VERY KEEN INDIVIDUALS THAT ARE VERY PASSIONATE ABOUT A PARTICULAR TOPIC, I BELIEVE THEY CAN MOVE QUICKLY.
HOWEVER, WHAT USUALLY HAPPENS IS THAT YOU HAVE SOMEBODY THAT'S KIND OF RELUCTANTLY AGREED TO BE A MEMBER OF A PANEL, AND THEY'RE DOING IT BECAUSE, YOU KNOW, THEY FEEL AN OBLIGATION TO THEIR MEMBERS, BUT THEY PERSONALLY DO NOT HAVE A LOT OF TIME TO SPEND ON IT.
AND THAT IS OFTEN THE DIFFICULTY THAT COUNCIL HAS.
JORDYN.
>>JORDYN BUCHANAN: YEAH.
ALTHOUGH I UNDERSTAND THE CONCERNS OF THE INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY CONSTITUENCY, I THINK THAT I FIND MYSELF INITIALLY BEING QUITE PERSUADED BY PHILIP'S APPROACH OF THE -- WORKING THE SECOND TASK FORCE SERIALLY WITH THE THIRD TASK FORCE OR ONE BIG TASK FORCE, BOTH SETS OF DISCUSSION ISSUES IN THAT I THINK THAT, A, I