[council] WHOIS Privacy Steering Group Teleconf. Aug. 7/8 - Draft minutes,text and html versions
gnso.secretariat at gnso.icann.org
Thu Aug 14 16:01:52 UTC 2003
WHOIS Privacy Steering Group Teleconference August 7/8 - Minutes
Acting Chair: Bruce Tonkin (non voting)
Voting members of the committee:
(Note with reference to the GNSO Council decision documented in the minutes
of the meeting on 5 June 2003, each constituency could appoint one or two
members to the WHOIS Steering Group - the members may be from outside the
GNSO Council - each constituency would have one vote in any vote proposed in
the WHOIS Steering Group.)
Intellectual Property Interests Constituency : Steve Metalitz
gTLD Registries constituency: David Maher, Ken Stubbs
Commercial and Business Users constituency: Marilyn Cade, Grant Forsyth
Non Commercial Users Constituency: Stephanie Perrin (replacing Ruchika
Registrars Constituency: Tom Keller, Mark Jeftovic
Internet Service and Connectivity Providers constituency: Tony Harris,
GNSO Council independent representative: Alick Wilson
GNSO Council independent representative: Demi Getschko
At-Large Advisory Committee (ALAC) liaisons: Thomas Roessler, Wendy Seltzer
(Note the At-Large Advisory Committee has the same status of the Government
Advisory Committee in the new ICANN structure and may report its findings
and recommendations directly to the ICANN Board, and in addition may appoint
non-voting liaisons to the GNSO Council. The role of Advisory Committees is
described in Article XI of the new bylaws - and part 4 of section 2
describes the structure of ALAC in more detail)
Government Advisory Committee Liaison: (non yet appointed to the Steering
IP Constituency : Kiyoshi Tsuru
Non Commercial Users Constituency: Milton Mueller
Item 1 Update on selection of chair
Bruce Tonkin reported that during the meeting in Montreal several options
were suggested for the chair and Bruce contacted, Mike Roberts, Scott
Bradner and Paul Kane on behalf of the WHOIS Privacy Steering Group. Mike
Roberts has indicated that he is not available, and Paul Kane would accept
the role if no one else would but it was not his preference. No response
from received from Scott Bradner. Bruce Tonkin offered to act as non-voting
chair, until another chair is selected by the Steering Group
Items 2: Update on WHOIS policy coordination with other related groups in
ICANN (GAC, ASO, IAB, ALAC, etc) chaired by Paul Twomey.
At the end of the WHOIS workshop in Montreal, Paul Twomey stated:
"I am asking the chairs of the GNSO, the Governmental Advisory Committee,
I'm also asking the IAB Liaison if they will come together with me and help
plot out a program for joint meetings between their particular ongoing
groups, the GAC as a working group, there's a working group, a steering
group in the GNSO, if they'll come together and plot out a program of joint
meetings with an aim towards two things: a prioritization of issues to be
addressed or issues that need to be further explored, and a work program for
the exploring of those issues together, with the aim that that would be done
intersessionally, but we would have another report from that joint meeting
framework in Carthage."
Subsequently two informal teleconferences have been held with
representatives from GAC, RIRs, IETF to identify what issues raised in the
WHOIS workshop are appropriate for further analysis. The topics discussed
included status of the IETF CRISP work, documenting uses for each data
element collected at the time of registration, possibility of classifying
types of registrants, and different approaches taken by cctld operators.
I expect that the next steps forward at an ICANN staff level are probably to
collate some of the data from the work already done on WHOIS within the
DNSO/GNSO, and also data presented at the Montreal meeting to help provide
factual data to guide policy development. The timing of this work will
probably be affected by ICANN staff resourcing. The work in turn may result
in issues reports, and then subsequently a formal policy development process
on some aspects.
Item 3: Review the objectives and terms of reference for the WHOIS Privacy
The WHOIS Steering Committee was formed after the GNSO Council received the
Staff Manager's report which was not in a format to allow for a policy
development process. The GNSO Council decided to form a Steering group to
examine the 20 issues mentioned in the Staff Manager's report and identify
which of the issues should be dealt with first and decide on one or more
The objective of the steering group is to:
- examine the Staff Manager's report on WHOIS Privacy
- review the factual presentations of the ICANN public forum on WHOIS in
- develop recommendations, for the GNSO Council to approve, to form a small
number (e.g less than 5) of Task Forces to carry out the policy development
process on the major issues identified in the Staff manager's report (it
should be possible to group some of the related issues for examination
within a single task force)
- the recommendations should incorporate for each task force a terms of
reference in accordance with the ICANN bylaws (Annex A, Section 7(b)):
" Such Charter will include:
1. the issue to be addressed by the task force, as such issue was
articulated for the vote before the Council that commenced the PDP;
2. the specific timeline that the task force must adhere to, as set forth
below, unless the Board determines that there is a compelling reason to
extend the timeline; and
3. any specific instructions from the Council for the task force, including
whether or not the task force should solicit the advice of outside advisors
on the issue." - if the steering group recommends more than two task forces
be created it should recommend to the GNSO Council an order in which the
task force work should be done, and an approximate timeframe for when each
task force will commence and finish Steering Group members might like to
review the IETF standard RFC2418 on IETF Working Group Guidelines and
Procedures. The standard documents best practice within the IETF in forming
working groups and defining charters. Section 2.1 (criteria for forming a
working group) and Section 2.2 (Charter) are particularly relevant.
Thomas Roessler reported that the ALAC was looking at how the WHOIS would
evolve in general terms and timewise, the ALAC felt that it was continuous
Bruce Tonkin noted that there should be an evolutionary approach in making
improvements to the contractual requirements for gtlds to better address
privacy concerns, rather than a sudden radical change..
As far as the WHOIS Steering Committee mandate is concerned, in the ICANN
structure the GNSO is only able to make recommendations on gTLDs that become
binding on Registrars and Registries. Some documents produced by the GNSO
could be used as "best practice" documents in other parts of ICANN. It was
stressed that the GNSO should focus on a few manageable tasks at a time.
The difference was explained between representatives from constituencies,
responsible for policy recommendations, and liaisons who were responsible
for bringing information from work done within their policy development
structure and taking back information from the GNSO work to their fora. The
hope was that by ensuring that all parts of ICANN were well informed on the
activities relating to WHOIS and Privacy, that a workable balance could be
achieved amongst the various stakeholder preferences.
Item 4: Review the objectives and terms of reference in light of the Staff
Manager's report .
The Staff Manager's report drew a distinction between WHOIS itself that is
concerned with the display of data, and the wider issues of privacy that
relate to the entire domain name registration and maintenance process, and
include what data is collected from the registrant, and how it is used,
maintained, and made available to others.
Preliminary Catalog of Issues
Issues concerning data collection
1. Should the elements of data that registrars are required to collect at
the time of registration of a domain name be revised? (See Registrar
Accreditation Agreement (RAA) § 3.2.)
2. Should registrars be prohibited by ICANN from collecting additional items
3. Should all registrants, or certain classes of registrants (see Issue 18
below), be afforded the option of not providing some or all elements that
registrars are required to collect and, if so, which elements?
4. Should the current mechanism for pseudonymous registration be changed or
supplemented with one or more alternative mechanisms? (See RAA § 184.108.40.206.)
Should steps be taken to encourage broader availability of this mechanism?
5. Are the current requirements that registrars make disclosures to, and
obtain consent by, registrants concerning the uses of collected data
adequate and appropriate? (See RAA §§ 220.127.116.11 to 18.104.22.168.)
Issues Concerning Data Quality
6. Are the procedures currently followed by registrars adequate to promote
accurate, complete, and up-to-date data, as required by both privacy and
accountability principles? (See RAA §§ 22.214.171.124, 126.96.36.199, and 3.7.8, as well
as the GNSOs Whois recommendations on accuracy adopted by the ICANN Board
on 27 March 2003.)
7. What should be the consequences when a registrant provides inaccurate or
incomplete data, or fails to correct inaccurate or incomplete data? (See RAA
§§ 188.8.131.52, 184.108.40.206, and 3.7.8.) Are safeguards needed to prevent abusive
reports of inaccuracies? Should certain classes of registrants (see Issue 18
below) be permitted to provide inaccurate or incomplete data?
Issues Concerning Data Handling
8. Are the current requirements that registrars handle personal data
according to the notices given at the time of registration, and in a manner
that avoids loss, misuse, unauthorized access or disclosure, alteration, or
destruction, adequate and appropriate? (See RAA §§ 220.127.116.11 and 18.104.22.168.)
9. Are the current requirements for handling of registrar data by registry
operators adequate and appropriate?
Issues Concerning Data Disclosure
10. Are the current means of query-based access appropriate? Should both
web-based access and port-43 access be required? (RAA § 3.3.1.)
11. What are the purposes for providing public query-based access? Are the
elements currently required to be disclosed in public query-based access
adequate and appropriate? (RAA § 3.3.1.)
12. What measures, if any, should registrars and registry operators be
permitted to take to limit data mining of Whois servers?
13. Should access to data be differentiated based on the party receiving
access, or based on the use to which the data will be put? If so, how should
differentiated access be implemented and how should the cost of
differentiation be funded?
14. Should the current requirement that registrars provide bulk Whois access
for non-marketing uses be further limited or eliminated? (RAA § 3.3.6, as
well as the GNSOs Whois recommendations on accuracy adopted by the ICANN
Board on 27 March 2003.)
Issues Concerning Data Use
15. Which uses of Whois data by members of the public should be permitted
(e.g., resolving technical problems, sourcing spam, identifying online
merchants, law enforcement activities, identifying online infringers for
enforcement of intellectual property rights, etc.)? Which uses should be
16. How should restrictions on permissible uses by members of the public be
enforced? (RAA §§ 22.214.171.124 to 126.96.36.199.)
17. To what extent is Whois data actually used to the harm of registrants
(e.g., identity theft, spam, stalking, and other harassment)?
Issues Concerning Classification of Registrants
18. Should certain types of registrants (e.g., those using domains for
political and similar activities) be exempt from the usual requirements to
provide data, or to have it available in Whois? How should the eligibility
of particular registrants for these exemptions be determined? Are measures
required to address the possibility of abuses in the classification
Issues Concerning Commercial Confidentiality and Rights in Data
19. Should registrars have the option, independent of their customers, to
protect the confidentiality of Whois data based on registrars proprietary
rights to that data? Are the current provisions permitting registrars to
claim proprietary rights in personal data about their customers appropriate?
(RAA § 3.5.)
20. Should there be ICANN requirements limiting registrars' ability to sell
or use Whois data, or other data collected about customers, for commercial
Bruce Tonkin reported on the Top level Steering group commentary as reported
by the representatives of each group during the 2 teleconferences:
1. Data collection: what is the actual/original focus of the data?
The ICANN staff charged with creating a table from the WHOIS workshop in
Montreal on data elements/data use
2. Data quality - accuracy. Discussed by the GNSO and in Montreal. This has
been dealt with as a first step in the reminder to registrar to ask
registrants to provide accurate data.
3. Data handling: not much discussion
4. Data disclosure: Work is going on in Internet Engineering Task Force on
new protocol. John Klensin, the IETF liaison on the ICANN Board requested
input from the GNSO on the requirements of this protocol.
5. Data use: not much discussion
6. Classification of registrants:
Individual and commercial users. How does the registrar make the separation?
It is possible that ICANN staff may assist in developinga discussion paper
on the various options.
7. Different countries have taken different approaches to the managementof
privacy issues associated with domain names within their related country
code, and ICANN staff may assist in putting together a table to compare the
Alick Wilson proposed:
That there should be different rules for disclosure and different rules for
eligibility for the Registrant and for the domain in which the Registrant
registers the name.
Ken Stubbs noted that there may be some variances to the handling of data
based on the purpose of the TLD. For example .name has some different
requirements, as it is primarily aimed at individuals. Marilyn Cade noted
that a conscious policy decision should be made on whether to attempt to
establish some minimum common standards amongst all gltds, or whether to
treat each gtld differently.
Item 5: Initial discussion on possible task forces
As the GNSO needs to prioritize its work program, Bruce Tonkin called for
input from each constituency of the GNSO to help select 5 top issues for
further consideration in one or more task forces.
Intellectual Property Interests Constituency :
Steve Metalitz reported that issues 10, 12, 14, 20, and 5 were of most
importance. In particular it should be possible to makes some
recommendations in the short term (related to issues 10,12) to deal with the
present problems of data mining of registration data using the IETF WHOIS
protocol (which uses TCP port 43). He also noted that the contractual
requirements associated with the use of bulk WHOIS (related to issues 14,20)
for marketing purposes were not being enforced, and it also appeared that
registrants were not properly informed about how the data collected at
registration would be accessed by the public (related to issue 5).
gTLD Registries Constituency:
David Maher selected issues 18, 10, 3, 4, and noted that with regard to the
.org registry that some registrants were seeking anonymity (related to
issues 3,4,18). Ken Stubbs added issues 12, 20 (related to issue 10), and
also agreed with Steve Metalitz that issue 5 was a problem.
Non-commercial Users Constituency:
Stephanie Perrin noted that the non-commercial users constituency was
interested in the preservation of anonymity (related to issues 3,4, 18), and
if there was some distinction made between data made available publicly and
data provided to for example law enforcement, that there was sufficient
transparency to the user as to who had access to non-public data (related to
issues 5 and 15). An appropriate oversight mechanism would be required for
Commercial and Business Users Constituency
Marilyn Cade noted that WHOIS data should not be used for marketing and
cited the need to control data mining related to issues 10 and 12. Marilyn
also stated that registrars should not use data collected for the purposes
of domain name registration for other commercial purposes related to issue
20. Finally commercial and business users of domain names require accurate
data (related to issues 6 and 7).
Tom Keller noted that the main issue for registrars concerned the data
mining of registration data via the query based service provided by port 43
WHOIS (related to issues 10 and 12). In addition registrars were considering
whether differentiated access to data is feasible (related to issue 13). Tom
agreed with Steve and Ken that registrants need to be made more aware of how
the data collected at the time of registration would be made available to
others (issue 5). Tom also questioned whether all data elements currently
required in the contracts were necessary (e.g customers may be prepared
accept a poorer quality of service that results from providing only a
limited number of contact points e.g if only email, or only postal address
was supplied). Mark Jeftovic noted with respect to issue 7, that registrants
needed to accept some responsibility in return for being online. Mark also
noted that the impact of providing bulk WHOIS on registrants needed to be
examined (issues 14, and 17).
Internet Service and Connectivity Providers Constituency
Tony Harris selected issues 6, 7,10, 12, and 13. Maggie Manonukia elaborated
that data quality (issues 6,7) and limitations on data mining (issues 10,12)
were the main issues for ISPs. Specifically accurate technical contact
information was very important (related to issues 1 and 6).
Issues under consideration within the At Large Advisory Committee Wendy
Seltzer reported that the At Large Advisory Committee was reviewing WHOIS
from first principles and considering what data must be collected (related
to issues 1,2,3,4,5). There were concerns that if the present data collected
was restricted for public access, but with mechanisms for law enforcement
access, that registrants may not be aware of what uses their data would be
put (ie this would lead to a lack of transparency for individual users).
Wendy reported that some individual users desire anonymity (the ability to
use a domain name without supplying their name), and pseudonymity (the
ability to provide a false name or nickname when registering a domain name).
In the absence of an accurate name, if a domain name was being used for
illegal purposes the action could be to shutdown the operation of the domain
name. Thomas Roessler added that individual users should be able to choose
how much contact information they supplied at the time of registration, on
the basis that an individual could choose to experience a lower quality of
service from a registrar that would result from such limited information.
Advice from GNSO Council members
Demi Getschko noted that in his personal opinion the most important issues
are 5,7 12, 14, 18, and 20.
Alick Wilson recommended that each constituency review the data that must be
collected by registrars currently and identify which elements should be
mandatory and identify for each of these elements the consequences if the
data element was not available. Alick also suggested that ICANN review how
countries that are operating cctlds have handled WHOIS with respect to the
privacy legislation applicable in that country.
Alick suggested that ICANN staff develop a data model for domain name
Item 6: Next steps
The GNSO Secretariat will prepare a draft table of the top 5 issues from
each GNSO Constituency based on the discussions above prior to the next
meeting of the Steering Group. Each Constituency should discuss amongst its
members to reach a consensus on the top 5 issues and report these to the
GNSO Secretariat to create a final version of the table.
The GNSO Secretariat will prepare a table of the current data elements that
must be collected by registrars at the time of registration. Each
constituency should discuss amongst its members to reach a consensus on
which data elements should continue to be mandatory and identify the
consequences if a mandatory element was not available.
The Steering Committee also requested that the chair (Bruce Tonkin) liaise
with the ccNSO through the ccNSO Liaison to the GNSO to seek a non-voting
liaison from the ccNSO on the steering group. Individual cctlds may be able
to provide their input on the table of data elements.
Alick Wilson to provide further information on the requirements for a data
model for domain name registration data.
Next teleconference to be scheduled by the Chair, with the objective of
agreeing on the top 5 issues, and beginning to see how the issues could be
grouped in one or more task forces.
Bruce Tonkin ended the call at 9:00 am Friday 8 August, Melbourne time,
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the council