DNSO Mailling lists archives


<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

[council] NC teleconf minutes 12 September 2002

[To: concil@dnso.org]

Dear Council members,

Please find the NC teleconference minutes below for your comments or
Thank you,
DNSO Secretariat

DNSO Names Council Teleconference on 12 September 2002 - minutes

13 September 2002.

Proposed agenda and related documents

List of attendees:

Elisabeth Porteneuve   ccTLD
Oscar Robles Garay     ccTLD
Philip Sheppard        Business
Marilyn Cade           Business
Grant Forsyth          Business
Greg Ruth              ISPCP  absent, proxy to Tony Holmes
Antonio Harris         ISPCP absent
Tony Holmes            ISPCP
Philipp Grabensee      Registrars absent
Ken Stubbs             Registrars
Bruce Tonkin           Registrars
Roger Cochetti         gTLD
Jordyn Buchanan        gTLD
Cary Karp              gTLD
Ellen Shankman         IP
Laurence Djolakian     IP
J. Scott Evans         IP
Harold Feld            NCDNH absent, apologies, proxy to Erick
Chun Eung Hwi          NCDNH  absent, apologies, proxy to Erick
Erick Iriate           NCDNH

15 Names Council Members

Ross Rader                Invited guest, Transfer Task Force
Thomas Roessler           GA Chair

Glen de Saint Géry     NC Secretary
Philippe Renaut          MP3 Recording Engineer/Secretariat

MP3 recording of the meeting by the Secretariat:

Quorum present at 15:10 (all times reported are CET which is UTC + 2 during
summer time in the northern hemisphere).

Bruce Tonkin chaired this NC teleconference.

Approval of the Agenda
The agenda was approved

Bruce reminded everyone that a year ago many ICANNers were on their way back
from the Uruguay meetings when the tragic event of 11 September happened
which affected everyone and led to many people being stuck experiencing
great difficulties in getting in touch with loved ones.
Glen reminded the group that we are all really together as a global
community, asked to join hands and form a virtual chain, fill their hearts
with love and peace and observe a minute of silence.

Item 1. Summaries of last meetings:


Ken Stubbs moved the adoption of the minutes seconded by Philip Sheppard,
The motion was carried.

Decision 1: Motion adopted.

Item 3: Actions from last meeting- report on suggested process for
addressing deletes. (15 minutes)

Bruce proposed the following course of action for dealing with the deletes
issue after consultation with Marilyn Cade, chair of transfers task force
(where deletes has been discussed in context of transfers and WLS):
Steps are as follows:
(1) Produce an issues report for the NC meeting on 3 Oct 2002. The issues
report will be produced using the resources of a small team (deletes issues
team) comprising: Bruce Tonkin Alexander Svensson Ross Wm. Rader Ram Mohan
Jordyn A. Buchanan Liu, Hong The report will be available by 19 September so
that it may be discussed within the constituencies prior to the 3 Oct
(2) At the meeting of 3 Oct 2002, decide whether to initiate policy action,
and whether to create a task force.
(3) If the decision is to create a task force, then an interim membership of
the taskforce will be established, and a draft terms of reference developed
and posted for consideration by constituencies by 17 October 2002.
(4) If a task force is created, then the NC will discuss and agree on the
task force, terms of reference, outcomes and timeline for the task force at
the meeting in Shanghai on Tuesday 29 October 2002.

Marilyn Cade proposed that the process as outlined go forward and Ken Stubbs
seconded the proposal.
Unanimously accepted by the Names Council members

Decision 2: Accept proposition by Bruce Tonkin following the course of
action for dealing with the deletes issue.

Item 4: Update on ICANN Board election process (5 minutes)

The secretariat reported that to date, Alejandro Pisanty had received 16
endorsements, YJ Park 8 and Vivek Durai 7, thus it was sure that Alejandro
Pisanty would stand for election as 10 endorsements are required per

The voting procedure as laid out in
defines that the vote by electronic ballot must be confirmed by a Names
Council teleconference and the Secretariat would enquire which date, 26 or
27 September would be most suitable for all Council members to confirm the

Action: Enquire from the members which date, 26 or 27 September is most

Item 5. - Transfer Task Force - review current status of outcomes with
respect to the terms of reference.

Bruce Tonkin summarized as follows:
TRANSFERS Task Force Terms of Reference (process started 11 October 2001):
The purpose of the Task Force on Transfers is to:
--develop broad understanding across the NC of the issues underlying the
disputed area of transfers of domain names between registrars
--ensure understanding of the proposed approach as documented in the
Registrars' procedural document, which has been voted on by the Registrars
--identify any broad policy issues (separate from contract issues), which
are the responsibility of the DNSO -devise recommendations which have broad
cross constituency support to any identified problems arising from the
language of the existing agreements where policy needs to guide contractual
--undertake a "fast track" working effort, via a Task Force, to present a
proposal for NC consideration at Marina del Ray NC meeting and to recommend
next steps, if any.
Transfers Task Force Recommendation
Current situation:
The gaining registrar can initiate a transfer after receiving a request from
a registrant. There is no minimum standard as to how the gaining registrar
should confirm a transfer request, and the process has been open to abuse
(e.g robust telemarketing).
The losing registrar can deny a transfer for several reasons, including if
the losing registrar doubts the identity of the person that has approved the
transfer. There is no standard that defines in detail how the losing
registrar determines if the registrant has given approval. This process has
also been open to abuse by effectively denying nearly all transfers.
The transfers task force has proposed a detailed process for improving both
the steps above.
The gaining registrars must confirm a transfer request (the original request
may contain the auth-code as part of an EPP registry implementation) by
attempting to contact either the administrative contact of the domain name
in the WHOIS, or the registrant directly.
The administrative contact or registrant must then explicitly consent to the
This consent is described by a "Form of Authorisation" that provides the
name of the gaining registrar and a concise statement describing the impact
of the registrant's decision. The gaining registrar must keep records of the
A losing registrar may contact the administrative contact or registrant to
confirm the intent to transfer. If the contact denies the transfer, then the
losing registrar will deny the transfer on the registrant's behalf (this is
sometimes called NACK). If there is no reply, the losing registrar will rely
on the processes of the gaining registrar (this is sometimes called default
Ross Rader commented that it was an accurate summary of the situation.

Marilyn Cade was concerned about the impact that changes would have on the
registrants and the way they would be informed,to which Bruce Tonkin agreed
that explaining the process to the registrants in a simplified way was
Roger Cochetti, quoting a similar procedure in the telephone company world,
where a third party was used to provide independent verification of the
registrant's wishes, said that a subscriber had to confirm his intent to
change while the present recommendations rely on the goodwill of the gaining
registrar, as well as the failure of the registrant to reject the notice of
transfer. Roger recommended that the task force develop an enforcement
structure to avoid gaming of the processes. In addition he felt the work on
enforcement should be completed, before a whole evaluation could be made.
In discussion , Ross Rader said that the recommendations stressed the
importance of obtaining authority and an enforcement structure to balance
the policy.
J.Scott Evans said users were being affected and very dissatisfied with the
present state of affairs.

Marilyn Cade said that an interim report would be posted next week for
public comment.
There would also be a Transfer session in Shanghai which was planned before
the Names Council meeting.

Bruce Tonkin thanked Marilyn Cade, Ross Rader and the task force for the
work they have done.

Item 6. - WHOIS Task Force - review current status of outcomes with respect
to the terms of reference (see below) - seek feedback from NC members on
draft recommendations and points of contention within the task force (30

Bruce Tonkin summarized the situation:

WHOIS Task Force Terms of Reference
The WHOIS Committee is to conduct an information gathering exercise and
draft a report identifying areas of agreement, and highlighting where more
work is necessary and the mechanism by which the identified work is
undertaken (Task Force/Working Group). Present the draft report to the
community for review and comment, then finalise the report and submit the
report to the NC.
WHOIS Task Force Draft Recommendations:
(A) Accuracy of data contained in the WHOIS database
- enforcing the existing contractual provisions in the gTLD environment.
- a method of graduated sanctions or enforcements should be considered, in
order to facilitate the actual enforcement of the current policy with
respect to WHOIS data accuracy. If not, then more substantial changes to the
Registrars Accreditation Agreement itself or the establishment of consensus
policies (as necessary) should be considered.
(B) Uniformity of data formats and elements across various TLDs and
registrars, including ccTLDs.
- uniform data format across gTLD and ccTLD environments should be
uniform WHOIS data elements across all gTLDs.
uniformity of data elements across gTLDs and ccTLDs: should be the subject
of separate deliberations taking into account specific aspects of the TLD
environments, the value of accountability and transparency across the domain
name system and public interest concerns.
(C) Better searchability of WHOIS databases.
ICANN should explore both enforcing the mandate to registrars and registries
to provide (or to cooperate in the provision of) such complete WHOIS search
service, and a market-based approach based on bulk access to WHOIS data. The
Task Force suggests that ICANN explore how best to swiftly develop and
implement a plan for cross-registry Whois services, including through third
party services, based on bulk access to WHOIS data.
(D) Marketing use of WHOIS data; bulk access provisions.
- review of the current bulk access provisions of the Registrar
Accreditation Agreement,
- exploring the option to reduce registrars' discretion in the design of
their respective bulk access agreements,
- stronger privacy protection for registrants,
- stronger restrictions on marketing use of WHOIS data,
- facilitation of bulk access for value-added non-marketing services, as
originally contemplated in the RAA.

Laurence Djolakian reported that different working groups had been formed to
facilitate the work and few public comments were received.
Marilyn Cade said that outreach to people with expertise is going on. An
official session of the WHOIS could be held in Shanghai if there is enough
interest. The coordination with other groups doing similar work would
benefit the Task Force.
Elisabeth Porteneuve asked about the WHOIS concerning IP addresses, and
while the Task Force had not examined the issue, Bruce Tonkin said that it
had come up in the Security committee and that Rick Wesson could be asked to
coordinate on this issue.
Ken Stubbs urged that a methodology for identifying abusers who use bulk
data for spamming should be developed and ICANN should enforce provisions,
otherwise Governments would step in and impose sanctions. A statement echoed
by Philip Sheppard.

Bruce Tonkin said that the 4 areas in the recommendations should be
discussed within the constituencies.

Marilyn Cade said that another draft for public comment and elaboration in
the 4 areas was due out soon.

Roger Cochetti and Ellen Shankman excused themselves and dropped off the

Item 7 - Feedback from Second Interim Implementation Report from the
committee of ICANN Evolution and Reform

Philip Sheppard made 2 comments:
- that the report shows good signs of listening to what thecommunity has
been saying. 3 GNSO representatives for the first year will automatically
fall to 2 after one year. Suggests a resolution that there should be a
review process after one year.
- There is a fundamental shift in stakeholder representation being suggested
and double voting to bodies with contractual relationships with ICANN. There
should be a balance of interest of the two groups and any variation from the
principle of equal stakeholder constituency representation and votes in the
proposed GNSO council is unacceptable.
Tony Holmes said that a key issue for the ISPCPs was the representation from
3 to 2 which has geographical diversity implications and the document does
not reflect this. In addition he asked about the ability of the Names
Council to pick up critical issues that had been discussed and have not been
acknowledged and make further representation in the time frame available.
Marilyn Cade said that the attitude conveyed to all broad stakeholder
groups, such as the Regional IP Registries (RIR), root server operators,
ccTLD and gTLD registries was a very top down process and a risky approach
as ICANN is built on a bottom up, with participation from a broad range of
stakeholders from the technical community to the policy making bodies to the
ccTLDs. She suggested conveying to the Evolution and Reform Committee that
it should be an evolutionary process and changes could be destructive. The
relationship with the RIRs should be documented, recognition given to
establishing a separate Country Code Supporting organisation and define the
processes to interact with the gTLDs.

Erick Iriate excused himself and dropped off the call

Elisabeth Porteneuve said that the ccTLDs had made an enormous effort during
August to contact the ERC and work out procedures and this has been
completely by passed. They have set up a committee with members theychoose
and the ccTLDs are very dissatisfied.

Thomas Roessler, GA chair, joined the call 16:25 CET

Oscar Robles said that an assistance group had been set up, but the
membership was not known and not to ask the ccTLDs was a mistake. However he
felt that it was important to support the work of this group as the working
period is only two weeks. He said that one of the people was from the
European Union.
Invitations have been sent out to an unknown population and only a sub group
has some information about the assistance group.
Ken Stubbs said that he was confused by what Elisabeth (no ccTLD members on
this committee)and Oscar (committee is in process of being formed) said.
He expressed concern about the ccTLD involvement in developing policy for
competitive TLDs, that is, gTTLDs. The argument given for their
participation is that the ccTLDs are representing their constituency, their
residents. While in the beginning when the DNSO was formed there were a
series of constituencies to represent various elements within the Internet
such as the Business constituency. As we move forward with the future ICANN,
the ccTLDs are not enamoured with the Registrars or gTLD Registries being
involved in developing policies for them dealing with ICANN, such as
redelegation, not the policies in their countries, but the policies dealing
with ICANN specifically. If we could get an assurance that the ccTLDs would
take a step back and allow those constituencies who deal with policies as
they relate to gTLDs, it would be much easier to provide encouragement for
their position as we move forward.
Elisabeth Porteneuve responded saying that ccTLDs have only been asking for
correct IANA functioning, the updating in IP name servers is not being done
by ICANN. The reason for being part of the ICANN process is the IANA
function and the root server service.
Ken Stubbs expressed concern on an ongoing basis, and said that he was not
saying the ccTLDs should not be part of the process.

Bruce Tonkin suggested that Philip Sheppard, Elisabeth Porteneuve and
Marilyn Cade send motions to the Names Council list to be seconded and voted
on by e-mail ballot.

Item 8. - Agenda topics for next meeting 3 Oct 2002
- review activities of task forces not covered in this meeting (decide
whether terms of reference are still relevant, and whether some task forces
should be closed)
* UDRP (review terms of reference and current progress)
* Structure task force
- Task force chairs (proposed by Jordyn Buchanan)
- Budget items- update on constituency payments

Circulation of resolutions by the 19th September and then send out voting

Tony Holmes suggested inviting Alejandro Pisanty to the next Names Council
teleconference on October 3, 2002.
The final report will have to be considered before Shanghai

Bruce Tonkin thanked the council members for their participation.

The teleconference ended at 17:10

Next NC teleconference will be on Thursday 26 or Friday 27 September at
15:00 Paris time, 13:00 UTC/GMT

     See all past agendas and minutes at
     and calendar of the NC meetings at

                 Information from:  © DNSO Names Council

<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>