[council] GNSO Council resolutions 4 March 2009

Thu Mar 5 15:42:00 UTC 2009

Dear Councillors,

Ahead of the formal minutes, please find the resolutions passed at the GNSO Open Council meeting in Mexico City on Wednesday, 4 March 2009. Motion 2, the Registrar Accreditation Agreement motion, passed unanimously as the one absentee vote in favour has been recorded.

Thank you.
Kind regards,

Glen

1. WHOIS Motion
Proposed by: Chuck Gomes
Seconded by: Tony Holmes, Olga Cavalli, Kristina Rosette

GNSO Council motion to pursue cost estimates of selected Whois studies.

Whereas:

In Oct-2007, the Generic Names Supporting Organization (GNSO) Council concluded 
that a comprehensive, objective and quantifiable understanding of key factual issues 
regarding the gTLD Whois system would benefit future GNSO policy development efforts
(http://gnso.icann.org/resolutions/ )

Before defining the details of these studies, the Council solicited suggestions from the 
community for specific topics of study on WHOIS. Suggestions were submitted 
(http://forum.icann.org/lists/WHOIS-comments-2008/ ) and ICANN staff prepared a 
'Report on Public Suggestions on Further Studies of WHOIS', dated 25-Feb-2008 
(http://gnso.icann.org/issues/Whois-privacy/Whois-study-suggestion-report-25feb08.pdf )

On 28-Mar-2008 the GNSO Council resolved to form a WHOIS Study Working Group to develop a 
proposed list, if any, of recommended studies for which ICANN staff will be asked to provide 
cost estimates to the Council (http://gnso.icann.org/meetings/minutes-gnso-27mar08.shtml )

The WHOIS Study WG did not reach consensus regarding further studies, and on 25-Jun-2008 
the GNSO Council resolved to form another group of volunteers (WHOIS Hypotheses WG) to 
review the 'Report on Public Suggestions on Further Studies of WHOIS' and the GAC letter 
on WHOIS studies. (http://www.icann.org/correspondence/karlins-to-thrush-16apr08.pdf)

This WG was tasked to prepare a list of hypotheses to be tested, and to deliver a report to the Council. The Whois Hypotheses WG delivered its report to the Council on 26-Aug-2008. 
(https://st.icann.org/Whois-hypoth-wg/index.cgi?Whois_hypotheses_wg#Whois_study_hypotheses_wg_final_report ).

On 29-Oct-2008 the Registry constituency circulated its recommendations for consolidating 
and considering further Whois studies. http://gnso.icann.org/drafts/gnso-whois-study-recommendations-ryc-29oct08.pdf

On 5 November 2008 the GNSO Council decided to convene a series of special meetings on Whois 
studies, and to solicit further constituency views assessing both the priority level and the 
feasibility of the various Whois studies that have been proposed, with the goal of deciding 
which studies, if any, should be assessed for cost and feasibility. The Council would then 
ask staff to perform that assessment, and, following that assessment, the Council would decide 
which studies should be conducted. Council Chair Avri Doria convened a volunteer group of 
Councilors and interested constituency members to draft a resolution regarding studies, if 
any, for which cost estimates should be obtained. This 'Whois Study Drafting Team' is 
tracked on a wiki page at whois discussion.

The Whois Study Drafting Team further consolidated studies and data requested by the GAC. 
For each of the consolidated studies, constituencies were invited to assign priority rank and 
assess feasibility.5 constituencies provided the requested rankings, while 2 constituencies 
(NCUC and Registrars) indicated that no further studies were justified.The GAC was also 
invited to assign priorities, but no reply was received as of 22-Jan-2009.

The Drafting Team determined that the six studies with the highest average priority 
scores should be the subject of further research to determine feasibility and obtain cost 
estimates. The selection of these initial studies does not foreclose further consideration 
of the remaining studies.

Resolved:

Council requests Staff to conduct research on feasibility and cost estimates for the 
 Whois studies listed below, and report its findings to Council as soon as possible, 
noting that Staff need not fulfill the full request at once but may fulfill the requirements in stages.

Group A (Studies 1, 14, 21 and GAC data set 2): 
Study 1 hypothesis: Public access to WHOIS data is responsible for a material number 
of cases of misuse that have caused harm to natural persons whose registrations do not 
have a commercial purpose. http://forum.icann.org/lists/whois-comments-2008/msg00001.html

Study 14 hypothesis: The Whois database is used only to a minor extent to generate 
spam and other such illegal or undesirable activities. http://forum.icann.org/lists/whois-comments-2008/msg00017.html

Study 21 and GAC data set 2 hypothesis: There are significant abuses caused by public 
display of Whois. Significant abuses would include use of WHOIS data in spam generation, 
abuse of personal data, loss of reputation or identity theft, security costs and loss of data.http://forum.icann.org/lists/whois-comments-2008/msg00026.html

Study 11. 
Study 11 hypothesis: The use of non-ASCII character sets in Whois records will detract 
from data accuracy and readability. http://forum.icann.org/lists/whois-comments-2008/msg00014.html

Group B (Studies 13, 17, GAC 1 & GAC 11) 
Study 13 hypotheses: a) The number of proxy registrations is increasing when compared 
with the total number of registrations; b) Proxy and private WHOIS records complicate the 
investigation and disabling of phishing sites, sites that host malware, and other sites 
perpetrating electronic crime as compared with non-proxy registrations and non-private 
registrations; c) Domain names registered using proxy or privacy services are disproportionately 
associated with phishing, malware, and other electronic crime as compared with non-proxy 
registrations or non-private registrations. http://forum.icann.org/lists/whois-comments-2008/msg00016.html

Study 17 hypothesis: The majority of domain names registered by proxy/privacy services 
are used for abusive and/or illegal purposes. http://forum.icann.org/lists/whois-comments-2008/msg00020.html

GAC Study 1 hypothesis: The legitimate use of gTLD WHOIS data is curtailed or prevented 
by the use of proxy and privacy registration services.

GAC Study 11 hypothesis: Domain names registered using proxy or privacy services are 
disproportionately associated with fraud and other illegal activities as compared with non-proxy registrations.

Group E (Studies 3 & 20) 
Study 3 hypothesis: Some proxy and privacy services are not revealing registrant/licensee 
data when presented with requests that provide reasonable evidence of actionable harm, as 
required to avoid liability under registration agreement provisions that reflect the 
requirements of RAA 3.7.7.3. http://forum.icann.org/lists/whois-comments-2008/msg00003.html

Study 20 hypothesis: Some proxy and privacy services do not promptly and reliably relay 
information requests to and from registrants/licensees. http://forum.icann.org/lists/whois-comments-2008/msg00023.html

Group C (GAC Studies 5 & 6) 
GAC Study 5 hypothesis: A significant percentage of registrants who are legal entities 
are providing inaccurate Whois data that implies they are natural persons. Furthermore the 
percentage of registrants with such inaccuracies will vary significantly depending upon the 
nation or continent of registration.

GAC Study 6 hypothesis: A significant percentage of registrants who are operating domains 
with a commercial purpose are providing inaccurate Whois data that implies they are acting 
without commercial purposes. Furthermore the percentage of registrants with such inaccuracies 
will vary significantly depending upon the nation or continent of registration.

Group D (Studies 18, 19, GAC 9 & GAC 10) 
Study 18 hypothesis: The majority of domain names registered by proxy/privacy services 
are used for commercial purposes and not for use by natural persons. http://forum.icann.org/lists/whois-comments-2008/msg00021.html

Study 19 hypothesis: A disproportionate share of requests to reveal the identity of 
registrants who use proxy services is directed toward registrations made by natural persons. http://forum.icann.org/lists/whois-comments-2008/msg00022.html

GAC Study 9 hypothesis: A growing and significant share of proxy/privacy service users 
are legal persons.

GAC Study 10 hypothesis: A growing and significant share of domains that are registered 
using proxy/privacy services are used for commercial purposes.

Council further requests that Staff refer to original study submissions (posted at http://forum.icann.org/lists/whois-comments-2008/ ), for statements of how study results could lead to an 
improvement in Whois policy. Many submitters also described the type of survey/study needed, 
including data elements, data sources, population to be surveyed, and sample size.

Staff is invited to pursue creative ways to develop cost estimates for these studies, including re-formulations of the suggested hypotheses.At any time, Staff may come back to Council with questions regarding study hypotheses. 
Staff is also requested to consider the results obtained 
from the ALAC on its priorities for studies and include any of studies that,
based on the same prioritization, fit in the groups designated in this resolution.

Council further requests that Staff communicate the resolution to GAC representatives once 
it has been approved.

The motion passed unanimously by voice vote:

Chuck Gomes, Jordi Iparraguirre (Registry constituency); Greg Ruth, Tony Harris, Tony Holmes (ISP); Mike Rodenbaugh, Philip Sheppard, Zahid Jamil (CBUC); Tim Ruiz, Stéphane van Gelder, Adrian inderis (Registrars) Olga Cavalli, Avri Doria, Terry Davis -remote participation (NCA); Mary Wong, Carlos Souza, Bill Drake (NCUC) Kristina Rosette, Cyril Chua - remote (IPC).

Absent: Edmon Chung (Registry constituency), Ute Decker (IPC).

2. Registrar Accreditation Agreement (RAA) motion
===================================================

Motion made by Tim Ruiz
Seconded by Kristina Rosette

Whereas, the Registrar Accreditation Agreement (RAA) has not been amended since May 2001, and ICANN has undertaken a lengthy consultative process related to amending the RAA, including several public comment periods and consultations;

Whereas, the proposed changes to the RAA include important compliance and enforcement tools for ICANN; The Council wishes to approve the set of proposed amendments as quickly as possible so that the ICANN Board may review them, and if approved then implement them as quickly as possible; and

Whereas,

The Council would like to proceed on the drafting of a charter identifying registrant rights that registrars would be obliged to link to, as contemplated in the set of amendments;

The Council would like a specific process and timeline to move forward with additional potential amendments to the RAA; and

The Registrar Constituency is supportive of these efforts and is willing to participate on a good faith basis on anticipated next steps.

Resolved:

The GNSO Council supports the RAA amendments as documented in http://gnso.icann.org/drafts/current-list-proposed-raa-amendments-16dec08.pdf
and recommends to the Board that they be adopted at its meeting of March 6, 2009;

Within 30 days of Board approval of the set of amendments, representatives from the GNSO community and the ALAC shall be identified to participate in drafting a registrant rights charter, as contemplated by the amendments and the current GNSO Council discussions, with support from ICANN staff. A draft charter shall be completed no later than July 31 2009; and

Within 30 days of Board approval of the set of amendments, the GNSO Council will form a Drafting Team to discuss further amendments to the RAA and to identify those on which further action may be desirable. The Drafting Team should endeavor to provide its advice to the Council and ICANN staff no later than July 31, 2009.

Motion passed unanimously by roll call vote.
27 Votes in favour

Chuck Gomes, Jordi Iparraguirre, Edmon Chung (Registry constituency) Tim Ruiz, Stéphane van Gelder, Adrian Kinderis (Registrars) 2 votes each; Greg Ruth, Tony Harris, Tony Holmes (ISP); Mike Rodenbaugh, Philip Sheppard, Zahid Jamil (CBUC); Olga Cavalli, Avri Doria, Terry Davis -remote participation (NCA); Mary Wong, Carlos Souza, Bill Drake (NCUC) Kristina Rosette, Cyril Chua - remote (IPC) one vote each.

Absentee ballot: Ute Decker (IPC) one vote in favour.
http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg06402.html

Glen de Saint Géry
GNSO Secretariat
gnso.secretariat at gnso.icann.org
http://gnso.icann.org