WHOIS Task Force 2 minutes

WHOIS Task Force 2 Teleconference December 30 - Minutes

ATTENDEES:

GNSO Constituency representatives:
gTLD Registries constituency: - Jordyn Buchanan chair
gTLD Registries constituency - David Maher (alternate)
Intellectual Property Interests Constituency - Steve Metalitz
Commercial and Business Users constituency:- Marilyn Cade
Non Commercial Users Constituency:- Kathryn Kleiman

Liaisons:
At-Large Advisory Committee (ALAC) liaisons - Thomas Roessler


ICANN Staff Manager: Barbara Roseman
GNSO Secretariat: Glen de Saint Géry

Absent with apologies
GNSO Council independent representative - Amadeu Abril I Abril
Registrars Constituency - Thomas Keller
Internet Service and Connectivity Providers constituency - Maggie Mansourkia
Intellectual Property Interests Constituency - Niklas Lagergren

The agenda was approved.
1. Extract and comment RAA provisions relevant to registrant notification and consent regarding data collection and processing. Report back from ICANN staff
2. First set of definite questions to external groups or people - request for data.
3. Timeline

Jordyn Buchanan proposed that the minutes of the December 1 meeting be accepted, while the minutes of December 8 would be modified as requested by Kathy Kleiman and approved when everyone had had a chance to read them.

The topic of MP3 recordings was raised. It was the custom to make MP3 recordings to assist with minutes and have a record of the meeting. The practise as such was approved but further thought was suggested on whether the recordings should be made publicly available.

Barbara Roseman reported that the extracts from the Registrars Accreditation Agreement regarding data collection, display and accuracy that had been drawn up with the help of Dan Halloran, would be published within the next hours.
It was suggested that to the extent to which this part of the fact-finding would only concern the relevant rules from the RAA, that it would be extended to the thick registry agreements, which would add the registrant's phone and fax number to the WHOIS data set.

Barbara Roseman suggested, in consultation with Dan Halloran that the top 20 registrars be targeted for finding out how current registrars informed registrants on the use of data.
Jordyn Buchanan's concern was that not all registrars with particularly good or particularly bad policies would be in the top 20. A balance would have to be found with what could be done and the resources available at ICANN especially with regard to resellers.

How resellers data should be documented was left open.
Jordyn Buchanan suggested the "bucket" or put in category form could be used.

Jordyn Buchanan referred to the proposed questions for registrars:

Questions for top ten registrars:
1) Please identify your top ten resellers, by volume.
Questions for all registrars:

1) What mechanisms do you use to inform potential and existing registrants of the purpose for which contact data is collected, and how that data will be released to the public? Please provide applicable URLs.

2) What mechanisms do you use to gain consent from registrants for the use of their data?

3) If you offer registrations through channels other than your website, how do the mechanisms used to inform registrants of the use of their contact data, and to gain consent for that usage, differ from those used on the website?

4) What requirements, if any, do you make of your resellers in terms of informing registrants of the use of their contact data, and gaining consent for that usage?

Proposed additions: How many Registrars have separate consent mechanisms for their consent on the topic.

Barbara Roseman clarified the purpose of the questions to the registrars which was to capture data that was not visible on their websites and the questions should be framed accordingly. The questions under discussion should be regarded as supplementary to the work being done by the ICANN staff.

Jordyn Buchanan, commented that there were two questions in place to get to provisions in the RAA across the staff survey and how disclosures were made via other channels.
Another question that could be added would be:
what accommodation, if any, have you made to comply with local or national laws regarding the collection and display of contact data.

Steve Metalitz proposed a follow up to the question specifying the laws.
Jordyn Bucahan commented that the questions could relate to more than one milestones.
The approval of the final list of question would be done by e-mail on the mailing list.
Additional questions as discussed would relate to:
a. purpose for which the contact data is collected
b. the intended recipients or categories of recipients for contact data
c. which contact data is obligatory and which if any is voluntary
Steve Metalitz proposed drafting the questions and Jordyn Buchanan proposed drafting the question on compliance with local or national laws.

Jordyn Buchanan read the -- Questions for constituencies:
1) For each existing data field within the Whois, please provide feedback to the task force regarding the following:
a) Use. How do members of your constituency make use of the data?
b) Necessity. Is it necessary that this information be made available to members of your constituency? If so, why?
c) Concerns. Describe any concerns your constituency may have with making this information available.

2) If there are fields not presently available within Whois that would be of use to members of your constituency, please suggest what those fields may be. For each suggestion, provide feedback regarding the following:
a) Use. How would members of your constituency make use of the data?
b) Necessity. Is it necessary that this information be made available to members of your constituency? If so, why?

3) Please comment on any mechanisms that you are aware of to allow anonymous domain registrations, or to limit the amount of contact data made publicly available through Whois?

Kathy Kleiman suggested an introduction for section 2 laying out the data fields for the Registrars Accreditation Agreement as well as a public comment period for the responses to the second part of the questionnaire, new data.
Jordyn Buchanan mentioned areas where public comment would be required thus questions should be formulated to solicit these.
a. Registrars and resellers disclosure and consent of data collection and display policies
b. Outliers
c. Documentation of local privacy law with the help of the Governmental Advisory Committee GAC and the ccNSO.

Time Schedule:
Jordyn Buchanan proposed to submit the following timeframe to the GNSO Council at the meeting on Thursday 18 December.

Task force 2 initially convened 2 December.

Interim report on primary data and collection efforts by 15 January.

Data gathering public comment to commence in early January.

Public comment to end by 25 January .

Data compiled from various sources by 2 February .

Constituency statements due 23 February.

Preliminary report prepared post-Rome ICANN meeting suggested 26 March which is three weeks after the conclusion of the Rome meeting and should allow time to create initial policy recommendations.

Public comment period (20 days)

Preparation of Final report (including any public comment of note) (10 days)

Council consideration of Final report (10 days)
Preparation of Board report (5 days)


Jordyn Buchanan thanked everyone for their presence and participation and ended the call at 18:50 UTC.

Next call: Tuesday 30 December 16:00 UTC, 11:00 EST, 8:00 Los Angeles, 17:00 CET.