[AfrICANN-discuss] Preliminary Report for Special Meeting of the ICANN Board of Directors

Anne-Rachel Inné annerachel at gmail.com
Mon Sep 17 23:23:12 SAST 2007

Preliminary Report for Special Meeting of the ICANN Board of Directors

[Formal Minutes are still to be approved by the ICANN Board]

11 September 2007

A Special Meeting of the ICANN Board of Directors was held via
teleconference on 11 September 2007. Chairman Vinton Cerf called the meeting
to order at 8.00 P.M. U.S. Pacific Daylight Time (PDT).

The following Directors participated in all or part of the meeting: Raimundo
Beca, Chairman Vinton G. Cerf, Susan Crawford, Peter Dengate-Thrush, Vice
Chairman Roberto Gaetano, Demi Getschko, Steven Goldstein, Joichi Ito,
Rajasekhar Ramaraj, Njeri Rionge, Vanda Scartezini, President and CEO Paul
Twomey, Bruce Tonkin, and, David Wodelet. The following Board Liaisons
participated in all or part of the meeting: Steve Crocker, SSAC Liaison;
Janis Karklins, GAC Liaison; Thomas Narten, IETF Liaison and Suzanne Woolf,
RSSAC Liaison. The following Board Members and Liaisons were not present on
the call: Vittorio Bertola, Francisco da Silva, and Rita Rodin

The following staff participated in part or all of the meeting: John
Jeffrey, General Counsel and Secretary; Doug Brent, Chief Operating Officer;
Paul Levins, Executive Officer and Vice President, Corporate Affairs; Kevin
Wilson, Chief Financial Officer; Kurt Pritz, Senior Vice President, Business
Operations; Barbara Roseman, Operations Manager, IANA; Denise Michel, Vice
President, Policy Development; Liz Gasster, GNSO Policy Support; David
Conrad, General Manager, IANA Donna Austin, Manager, Governmental Relations;
and Kim Davies, IANA Technical Liaison.

The Board discussed and took action on the following matters:

* Approval of Board Minutes from Special Meeting of the ICANN Board, 14
August 2007 *

The Chair introduced the Board minutes from the meeting of 14 August, which
had been circulated to the Board earlier.

Steve Goldstein moved and Vanda Scartezini seconded to adopt the Board
minutes of 14 august 2007 without correction.

Resolved (07.69), the minutes of the Board Meeting of 14 August 2007 are

A voice vote was taken of all Board Members present and the motion was
approved unanimously by a vote of 14-0. * *

* Approval for public comment posting of the ICANN Board Review Terms of
Reference *

Vint Cerf introduced the topic and Paul Levins provided background on the
Board Governance Committee and full Board's involvement and comments on the
proposed draft. Steve Goldstein noted that most of the issues that he had
raised previously have been included. Steve Goldstein further asked if the
accountability of the ICANN Corporation itself is to be rated or evaluated
differently from the accountability of the Board and are the two issues

The Chair felt that the performance/accountability of the Board and the
organization are not identical. It's an open question of whether we have in
our bylaws to review the organization itself. John Jeffrey advised that the
bylaws-mandated reviews did not include the board itself or a review of the
entire organization but that there was nothing to preclude the Board from
taking a broad scope approach. Steve Goldstein considered that if the Board
is ultimately responsible for the organization of ICANN then the
performance/accountability of ICANN as an organization is not severable from
performance/accountability of Board. The Chair agreed that we might want to
take into account more than the Board performance/accountability and this is
a worthwhile issue to be discussed. The performance/accountability of the
organization as a whole should be looked into and the issue should come back
to the Board for discussion at another meeting.

Peter Dengate Thrush moved to approve the publication of the Board Review
Terms of Reference for public comment and Bruce Tonkin seconded this motion.

Resolved, (07.70) that the proposed Terms of Reference for a review of the
Board of Directors should be posted for public review and comment, and that
those comments should be reviewed and considered before adopting those Terms
of Reference.

A voice vote was taken of all Board Members present and the motion was
approved unanimously by a vote of 14-0.

* Board Governance Committee's Recommendation regarding Nominating Committee
Chairman *

Roberto Gaetano, Chair of the Board Governance Committee, advised that seven
candidates have been evaluated for the position of the Chair of the
Nominating Committee. As part of the process this year, potential candidates
were asked to provide a CV and respond to a number of criteria associated
with the role. Some applicants withdrew from the process for various
reasons. A short list of four candidates emerged and the Committee discussed
these via email and ranked people. The Committee's unanimous recommendation
is to propose a resolution that Hagen Hultzsch be appointed as the Chair of
the Nominating Committee.

The Chair accepted this as a motion to approve Hagen Hultzsch as the
Nominating Committee Chair as a recommendation of the Board Governance
Committee. Peter Dengate Thrush seconded this motion.

Resolved (07.71), that Hagen Hultzsch is appointed as Chair of the 2008
Nominating Committee, to serve until the conclusion of the ICANN annual
meeting in 2008, or until his earlier resignation, removal, or other
disqualification from service.

A voice vote was taken of all Board Members present and the motion was
approved unanimously by a vote of 14-0.

Peter Dengate Thrush added that he felt the BGC had done very much better
than had been done in the past by setting out a job specification for the
first time and sending this to potential candidates. He felt they have a
very good candidate with a good understanding about what is required.

Steve Goldstein noted that it is a very onerous job and it reflects well on
our status that so many people were interested.

It was agreed that Roberto would inform Hagen of the Board's decision, and
there should be a formal communication as well.

* Board Governance Committee's Recommendation regarding the Academic
Representative to the next Nominating Committee *

Robert Gaetano advised that the Board Governance Committee is recommending
the return of Jose Luiz Ribeiro Filho as the academic and research
representative to the Nominating Committee. George Sadowsky's views were
sought and excellent feedback was received about Jose's contribution to the
Nominating Committee so no further research was undertaken to find
alternative candidates. Jose Luiz has agreed to serve a second term.

The Chair moved a motion to approve the recommended candidate to serve as
the academic representative and Vanda Scartezini seconded the motion.

Resolved (07.72) that the Board the appointment, for a second term, of Jose
Luiz Ribeiro Filho as the 2008 Nominating Committee Academic Representative.

A voice vote was taken of all Board Members present and the motion was
approved unanimously by a vote of 14-0.

* Board Governance Committee's Update on Corporate Governance Guidelines and
Code of Ethics *

Roberto Gaetano advised that the BGC has only recently started the
discussions on this issue and not a lot of progress has been made. He is
personally collecting all the material from previous discussions that have
been undertaken by the BGC, including prior to his tenure on this committee.
It is hoped that the BGC will be able to make a proposal by the LA meeting,
at least a draft and will discuss with General Counsel the extent to which
the document should be posted for public comment

The Chair felt it is a matter of public interest and there should be the
opportunity for discussion and listening to what people have to say and
adoption at a later time.

* Board Meetings Committee's Recommendations regarding ICANN Meeting Site *

Susan Crawford advised that four proposals had been received for ICANN's
meeting in Asia Pacific in February 2008: Dubai, Delhi, Sydney and Hong Kong
and the meetings committee is recommending Delhi. The Delhi proposal has a
high level of government support and this bid has addressed hotel
availability that was a concern in a bid received previously from India and
meets ICANN's needs. The other proposals had venue issues including in one
instance, an inability to reserve a venue, but was on a wait list. There
will be disappointed bidders and a process for managing multiple bids is
being looked into. Susan suggested that Dubai should be considered for a
regional event in 2008. The meetings committee is also having discussions
about the next Asia Pacific meeting in 2009 and considering whether they
should take a special approach given the three unsuccessful bids in this

Susan proposed the Board acknowledge the Committee's choice of Delhi for
February 2008, and that there be a major regional meeting in Dubai in 2008.

The Chair moved the motion to adopt the Meetings Committee recommendation of
Delhi and Steve Goldstein seconded this resolution.

Resolved (07.73), the Board accepts the recommendation of the Meeting's
Committee and approves Delhi as the venue for the ICANN Meeting in February
2008, and directs staff to move forward with negotiations and plans for that
ICANN Meeting.

A voice vote was taken of all Board Members present and the motion was
approved unanimously by a vote of 14-0.

Raimundo Beca abstained. Raimundo Beca explained his abstention by raising
concerns that the Delhi meeting will be during holiday time in his country
and many Southern Hemisphere/Latin American countries. He was concerned that
the Board approves the place but not the timing. Susan Crawford advised that
the timing was a result of avoiding other major meetings scheduled for that
time, including the IETF.

The Chair asked that the Meetings Committee again consider the balancing of
these considerations in future decisions.

With regard to the second issue, to approve the motion of a regional meeting
in Dubai, the Chair was unsure what kind of commitment was being sought.

Susan Crawford advised that the motion was no more than an acknowledgment
from the Board; such meetings have progressed without Board approval

Peter Dengate Thrush noted that he didn't understand what the concept of an
ICANN regional meeting. Susan Crawford advised that the model talked about
is that used in Eastern Europe and Latin America where there is an occasion
to get together registrars, GAC representatives or meeting to discuss ICANN
topics, with a level of ICANN support.

The Chair suggested that the Board should focus attention on the regional
meeting concept, the definition of which is unsettled. He asked the Meetings
Committee to review the idea and bring back to the Board more information.
Susan Crawford agreed and noted that these meetings have taken place in the
past on a somewhat ad-hoc basis.

Paul Twomey advised that there is a regional meeting taking place in Taipei
and is a meeting that has similarities to the Dubai concept. There is a
keenness to host what will be a technical workshop on IDNs, with one of the
differences being there is no formal meeting of GAC. The Strategic Plan
consultations has bought the concept of regional meetings up in feedback and
this is reflected in the Issues Paper on the Strategic Plan which was posted
within the 24 hours prior to this board meeting.

The Chair considered that some form of formalization, structure and planning
would be appropriate for such meetings and the Meetings Committee should
review this issue.

Raimundo Beca supported the regional meeting idea, noting that the
LACNIC/LACTLD meetings are a very popular event. The Chair suggested that
perhaps the regional meetings could be done in conjunction with another
regional activity such as RIRs or other bodies.

Paul Levins advised that the unsuccessful applicants would be contacted
prior to the posting of the Board minutes. **

* Delegation of the .KP ( North Korea) Domain*

Kim Davies updated the board on the delegation request and presented the
staff report and recommendation. The evaluation concluded that the
delegation met the basic criteria to support a delegation request to the
Korea Computer Center.

Steve Goldstein moved and Roberto Gaetano seconded the following resolution:

Whereas, ICANN has received a request for the delegation of .KP to Korea
Computer Center,

Whereas, ICANN has reviewed the request, and has determined that the
proposed redelegation would be in the best interest of the local and global
Internet communities.

It is hereby resolved (07.74), that the proposed delegation of the .KP
domain to Korea Computer Center is approved,

A voice vote was taken of all Board Members present and the motion was
approved unanimously by a vote of 14-0.

*Delegation of the .ME ( Montenegro) Domain
**Delegation of the .RS ( Serbia) Domain
** Redelegation of the .YU (former Yugoslavia) Domain *

Kim Davies advised that the delegation of .ME ( Montenegro) and .RS (
Serbia) and the redelegation of .YU ( Yugoslavia) were interrelated. At the
time that Serbia and Montenegro became new countries, the ISO 3166-1list was
altered to give the two countries individual codes .RS and .ME respectively.
To date, the countries covered have been using the .YU domain. The YU code
is no longer in the ISO 3166-1 list and has been replaced with .ME and .RS
and as such should be decommissioned in a responsible way. The transition
plan from .YU to .RS and .ME involves an MOU between the two entities and
would see that .YU is assigned to the proposed .RS sponsoring organization,
which is effectively the same operator as today. They would act as caretaker
for .YU for two years to allow for a stable transition. ICANN's proposed
resolution language is consistent with this plan however a three-year
transition period is proposed to allow for contingencies. The proposed
resolutions support the two new delegations and acknowledge the two parties
involved in de-commissioning of the .YU domain, and state it is to be
retired in three years time.

In addition to explaining the ICANN evaluation of the delegation
applications, the board was also advised of last-minute correspondence IANA
had received in relation to the delegation of the .ME domain.

Steve Goldstein asked if there is any provision in the agreement to restrict
new registrations in .YU. Kim Davies advised that he would have to check to
be certain, but as soon as new registrations are allowed in .RS and .ME it
was his understanding that it would not be possible to register new domains
in .YU.

Steve Goldstein asked why the preference for a three-year transition rather
than two. Kim Davies advised they didn't want to propose something that was
too aggressive. The applicants had proposed a two-year transition period,
but the Board could consider a different length.

The Chair proposed that the language in the resolution could be changed to
be up to and no more than three years.

Steve Crocker acknowledged that some transitions have taken a long time. An
additional suggestion would be to ask for regular reports with metrics
measuring progress towards the outcome.

Kim Davies noted that the resolution proposed does suggest that the .YU
registry report every 6 months to ICANN Staff on progress. The proposed
resolution also makes it clear the domain must be removed no later than
2010, which was considered a responsible timeframe that was neither too
aggressive, nor unnecessarily prolonged. If the community felt it could
transition quicker there is nothing to stop that from happening.

Paul Twomey suggested that the wording be slightly amended asking that they
report progress against appropriate metrics.

There were no objections to the suggested amendments.

Dave Wodelet asked if it mattered if they take till 2008, 2009 or even 2010
and the Chair responded that we do want a certain end date.

Kim Davies advised that there is no strong precedent for how long transition
will take from one to the other. There have only been a small number of
transitions of country codes in the history of ccTLDs. In trying to
determine what they considered a reasonable timeframe for transition the
closest comparable situation that IANA was aware of is when
telephone-numbering systems change. These transitions generally take place
in one-to-two years.

The Chair noted that the language proposed by Paul Twomey seems acceptable,
an alternative to an extra year would be to stick with two years to 2009 and
if the party needs more time they could come back and explain why, which may
be the best option. Putting in a two-year timeframe provides them with
leverage to help their community to promptly perform the transition. The
Chair recommended the alternative on the basis it was made clear to them
that if they have a problem with two years they can come back with an
explanation to ICANN as to why they need more time.

Susan Crawford noted that she understands the direction and appreciates the
conservative approach, but asked what mechanism should be used if the
transition moves too slowly.

The Chair reflected that if they come back and have a reasonable
explanation, then this should be okay. He believed you would help them with
a shorter deadline as they can point to that as a mandate to move ahead and
transition to other the domain.

Janis Karklins noted that human nature suggests they will take as much time
as they are given for transitioning. He suggested that the resolution should
include a point that ICANN Staff should keep the Board informed of the
progress of the transition.

In summation, the Chair suggested that the Board approves all three
requests, and that ICANN Staff is expected to keep the Board informed on the
retirement of .YU domain. Paul Twomey added that they communicate according
to appropriate metrics.

Steve Goldstein moved and Vanda Scartezini seconded the following

Delegation of .ME

Whereas, the .ME top-level domain is the designated country-code for

Montenegro ,

Whereas, ICANN has received a request for delegation of .ME to the
Government of Montenegro,

Whereas, ICANN has reviewed the request, and has determined that the
proposed delegation would be in the best interest of the local and global
Internet communities,

Resolved (07.75), that the proposed delegation of the .ME domain to the
Government of Montenegro is approved.

Delegation of .RS

Whereas, the .RS top-level domain is the designated country-code for Serbia,

Whereas, ICANN has received a request for delegation of .RS to the Serbian
National Register of Internet Domain Names,

Whereas, ICANN has reviewed the request, and has determined that the
proposed delegation would be in the best interest of the local and global
Internet communities,

Resolved (07.76), that the proposed delegation of the .RS domain to the
Serbian National Register of Internet Domain Names is approved.

Redelegation of .YU

Whereas, the .YU top-level domain is currently used by the citizens of both
Serbia and Montenegro,

Whereas, ICANN has delegated the .RS domain for use in Serbia, and the .ME
domain for use in Montenegro,

Whereas, the ISO 3166-1 standard has removed the "YU" code, and the ISO 3166
Maintenance Agency recommends its use be discontinued,

Whereas, ICANN is not responsible for deciding what is or is not a country,
and adheres to the ISO 3166-1 standard for guidance on when to add, modify
and remove country-code top-level domains,

Whereas, there is a transition plan to move registrations in .YU to the new
domains .RS and .ME, with the operator of .RS acting as the temporary
caretaker of .YU until the transition is complete,

Resolved (07.77), that the .YU domain be redelegated to the Serbian National
Registry of Internet Domain Names in a temporary caretaker capacity.

Resolved (07.78), that the Serbian National Registry of Internet Domain
Names be instructed to report their progress on decommissioning the .YU
domain every six months to ICANN against a relevant set of metrics.

Resolved (07.79), that the Serbian National Registry of Internet Domain
Names, and the Government of Montenegro, work to complete the transition
from the .YU domain to the .RS and .ME domains, so that it may be removed
from the DNS root zone no later than 30 September 2009.

A voice vote was taken of all Board Members present and all three motions
were approved by a vote of all members present 13-0, with one abstention
from Peter Dengate Thrush.

Peter Dengate Thrush explained that his reservation was associated with his
belief that such policy decisions concerning delegation should rest with the
ccNSO as specifically provided under the bylaws. He noted that he has raised
this issue on a number of occasions suggesting that this matter should be
referred to the ccNSO but to no avail.

The Chair noted that these practices have been in existence prior to the
formation of the ccNSO, and that if policy is required in this area that the
ccNSO work on a policy proposal, that might be properly considered.

* Status Report on discussions with the UPU regarding .POST and renewal
agreements for .AERO and .MUSEUM *

Kurt Pritz advised that there are issues in common with all the ongoing sTLD
negotiations (.MUSEUM, .AERO, and .POST). In some cases negotiations are
close to conclusion and in other cases, additional negotiation is required.
These issues have come up in other recent registry negotiations and these
issues have been themes for discussion across the gTLD community.

First, registries are seeking limitations to the requirement to comply with
ICANN consensus policies and have to follow and comply with consensus
policies. The second issue is the requirement to use ICANN accredited
registrars to register names in gTLD registries. The third issue is the
request for a clause in the agreement requiring indemnification by ICANN to
registries for costs associated with compliance to consensus policies. This
last clause was included in old gTLD agreements but was eliminated in all
new gTLD (including sTLD) agreements. Indemnification was seen as necessary
in early days of gTLD development but as the market and registries have
matured, it has become apparent that this form of indemnification is not
necessary or desirable in the future development of the DNS.

Steve Goldstein asked what it means to comply with consensus policies? Kurt
Pritz advised that the ccNSO, GNSO or ASO are designated to recommend
consensus policy to Board. When the Board approves the consensus policy, it
is incorporated by reference into the gTLD agreements.

Steve Goldstein clarified that after a contract is signed these can be
amended because there are new consensus policies. Kurt Pritz responded that
registry agreements include a clause that requires compliance with consensus
policy even when the policy is approved after the contract is executed.

Sponsored TLDs, by their definition, have significant policy making
authority. So certain policy-making authority is reserved to the sponsoring
organization in sTLDs. Recent sTLD agreements include requirement for
compliance with consensus policy, including the process for considering new
registry services – a stability and security threshold review.

As these contractual issues were raised, ICANN facilitated public discussion
on each and requested public explanations of the sTLDs as to why these
contract changes are important to them. It is important for the Board to
understand that the public discussion will not necessarily lead to agreement
across constituency groups and the Board may be left to decide whether
certain agreement terms should be approved in the face of criticism.

Kurt then reviewed the negotiating status on each of the registries, as

Negotiation status – .MUSEUM: This negotiation is complete, a second version
of the agreement is posted for public comment. The controversial issue was
that .MUSEUM asked to "self-register" 5000 names. The reason was that
.MUSEUM wished to replace the functionality of their "wildcard" that .MUSEUM
was giving up in this negotiation. After registrar constituency criticism,
Cary Karp met with the registrar constituency in Lisbon. Through that
discussion, the contract language evolved to what is posted, including a
reduction in the number of names to 4000. The proposed new language was
posted on 31 August 2007 and thus far, there has been no comment from the
registrar community, which has been primary in its opposition. ICANN Staff
anticipates asking the Board to approve the agreement at the 16 October 2007
Board Meeting.

Negotiation status – .AERO: Many contractual issues have been resolved,
however, some core issues remain uncompleted. The sponsor SITA states that,
in the proposed agreement, the language does not adequately protect the
sponsor's delegated policy making authority. They have requested a
significant exemption from consensus policy compliance. SITA also requested
that the old indemnification clause remain in their contract even thought
the clause in other agreements has been eliminated. They claim they should
not be responsible for costs arising from ICANN actions. Finally, they wish
to eliminate the clause present in other agreements that prohibits
registries from owning a 15% interest in a gTLD registrar. Their reason is,
that in their large organization, a registrar may be acquired without notice
to the sponsoring organization.

While negotiations are amicable, ICANN Staff and SITA disagree on the
approach to these three core issues. Staff continues to work for a
conclusion that SITA and ICANN Staff can mutually recommend.

Negotiation status – .POST: UPU, the sponsor, has in recent months
invigorated the negotiation. The issues here are similar. The UPU seeks
exemption from consensus policy and to include indemnification by ICANN for
certain costs to the registry. Additionally, their scheme does not plan to
utilize ICANN registrars for their 300-400 primary registrations of their
member states (uk.POST, for example). These requests have been based on the
UPU's special status as a U.N. organization. ICANN has posted a UPU position
paper describing their business plan and model to the gTLD constituency
group, which has been offered to the community for input. The UPU would like
to complete negotiations before the Los Angeles ICANN Meeting, but time is
running short for appropriate comment periods and the issues remain

Susan Crawford considered that in relation to the consensus policy
structure, it will be important for ICANN to stick with the consensus policy
model as it gives ICANN legitimacy and consistency in dealing with
registries so long as the right process has been used to achieve the policy.
Susan acknowledged the difficulty but concluded that it is essential that
the consensus policy clause remain in the agreement. With regard to business
models, she hoped it would not always be the case that ICANN-accredited
registrars were to be used.

Bruce Tonkin noted that in the context of the new gTLD process where the aim
is to get consistency in agreements, he is wary of considering agreements on
a case-by-case basis.  The requirements to adhere to Consensus policy and
use ICANN accredited registrars are covered in the proposed new gTLDs
policy.  His view is that given how hard it is to develop consensus policies
these should be adhered to by registries and registrars noting for example
that the new gTLD process has taken two years of intensive negotiation and
has been through rigorous process.  The use of registrars has been part of
new gTLD discussion between registries and registrars and the general
principle is that the registrar should be accredited by ICANN and should be
treated equally.   There have been some discussions over whether there
should continue to be restrictions on the level of ownership by a registry
of a registrar, and whether a registry may also be accredited as a registrar
for its TLD.   With regard to .POST and the three to four hundred names,
there should be a separation between domain name allocation and domain name
records maintenance. The .POST application may pre-allocate names as part of
the TLD proposal; but maintenance of records could still be done by
registrars .   It is likely that registrars are already maintaining other
domain name records for potential .POST registrants.

Kurt Pritz advised that the clean division between registrar and registry is
based upon policy and practice and it dates from the beginning the gTLD
model structure. The agreements state that a registry cannot own 15% of
registrar. The discussion between the roles of registries and registrars is
ongoing about how distinction can be kept and business models accommodated.

Raimundo Beca asked if the date of November 2 is definite or if it can be
moved. Raimundo reflected that we should be careful not to give the UPU any
favors, as they are an organization that has a history of monopoly and now
there is competition. They should have to comply with the consensus
policies. He noted that the UPU and the ITU have a similar history and that
the ITU does not have it's own TLD, but is registered under ITU.INT

Kurt Pritz advised regarding the November 2 date, the UPU requested ICANN
Board approvals by that date so the UPU Congress can consider approving the
agreement. We will make every effort to resolve all issues in time for that
but have indicated that the deadline might be problematic because of the
public debate around this agreement. Question was raised regarding whether
the UPU could possibly consider the proposed agreement before Board

Steve Goldstein noted that he was against giving special consideration on
consensus, indemnity, and registrar with exception of .MUSEUM. If you look
ahead to 10,000 TLDs it will be difficult to go forward without common
agreement. Steve Goldstein does not want to alienate the registry community,
and he does not want ICANN to indemnify the TLD sponsors against consensus
policies, so if such clauses were included in these agreements, he would
vote "no".

Steve Crocker noted that he had previously reviewed this issue and that with
regard to .MUSEUM and other special registries using registrars, there is
not enough business for those registrars to participate. He noted that
.MUSEUM has problems getting the attention of registrars. The idea was to
create competition but when registrations fall below a threshold it makes
the business model difficult. Its nice to have a one size fits all but this
does not fit the facts of the matter. Steve indicated that if we're going to
encourage or have a system in place favorable to registries 100,000 minimum
business model then we have to have the ability to use a mechanism other
than a competitive registrars system.

Bruce Tonkin advised that what Steve explained registrars understand, but
the concern about considering on a case by case is the use of a series of
precedents and trying to look at the issue as a whole and come up with
something workable and in recognition of the points made.

Steve Crocker noted that he had no problem with the framework developed to
deal with those issues but considered that what we have now does not work.

* Information Update on GNSO's WHOIS Policy Development *

Denise Michel advised that the GNSO has an ongoing PDP on WHOIS and at a
recent GSNO Council meeting a schedule was laid out for WHOIS reports.
Council will have a final vote on task force and working group reports that
staff are finalizing. Staff was asked to engage in some studies on
registrars and misuses, the study is also expected to review processes
available today, and other studies staff is working on. An implementation
assessment is being prepared on issues involved on what is referred to as
the operational point of contact (OPOC) proposal. The working group report
completed in March intended a point of contact in lieu of a registrant. More
recently the GNSO Council established a short term working group to look at
the OPOC issue, and the working group examined the roles and
responsibilities of OPOC not fulfilled, legitimate interest, third party
contact information should be based on registered name holder, registrants
use of domain name. The working group report has some points of agreement
and some of points of significant disagreement. Staff is compiling all this
information for Council consideration.

Susan Crawford asked the timing for when board will get the report from the
GNSO. Denise Michel advised that it is very fluid at this point in that with
regard to OPOC, at one point there was strong agreement on the ability to
consider OPOC proposal and the support for that proposal decreased as we got
further into the detail of implementation and effects on registry and
registrars became apparent. So there are many open issues and the important
step is the staff development of implementation notes. The timing is

Janis Karklins recognized that the GNSO council has used words in GAC WHOIS
principles recommendations for action for study on use and misuses of WHOIS
data, which is appreciated by the GAC. He is happy that staff has started
compiling the data and will prepare a report. He asked about the timeline
for the completion of the work and what sources will be used in compiling

Liz Gasser confirmed that recommendations made by the GAC have been
incorporated into the GNSO discussion. Staff is undertaking work to obtain
information regarding the uses and potential misuses of information, the use
of proxy services as it affects Whois accuracy, and Whois contractual
compliance. Staff will provide additional updates on activities. There are
some preparatory activities that will guide staff about additional work.
Staff will be giving an update to GNSO on 4 October.

Bruce Tonkin advised that conflicting draft resolutions have been
circulating on the Council list regarding next steps on the WHOIS proposals,
however as registries and registrars appear to be withdrawing their support
for the taskforce proposal on OPAC, as modified by proposals from the WHOIS
working group, he expects Council will say they can't reach an agreement.

The Chair asked if the parties in debate agreed accurate information is
available, was who has access to the information the primary issue.

Bruce Tonkin advised that the work had stopped on accuracy until
improvements were made on access control, and that  many in the GNSO believe
that registrants would be more willing to provide accurate information if it
was not publicly available.  The Chair suggested that maybe there is a
kernel of agreement for drawing together the different sides.

* Adjournment*

Steve Goldstein moved a motion to adjourn and Roberto Gaetano seconded this


Meeting closed at 10.00pm US PDT
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/africann/attachments/20070917/7389ac4d/attachment-0001.htm

More information about the AfrICANN mailing list