Site Map

Please note:

You are viewing archival ICANN material. Links and information may be outdated or incorrect. Visit ICANN's main website for current information.

ICANN Meetings in Marrakech, Morocco

GNSO Council Meeting

28 June 2006

Note: The following is the output of the real-time captioning taken during the GNSO Council Meeting held on 28 June 2006 in Marrakech, Morocco. Although the captioning output is largely accurate, in some cases it is incomplete or inaccurate due to inaudible passages or transcription errors. It is posted as an aid to understanding the proceedings at the session, but should not be treated as an authoritative record.


GNSO Meeting
Wednesday 28 June 2006
ICANN - Marrakech

>>BRUCE TONKIN: If anyone has an update they'd like it make to their standing
statements of interest.  We will then be ratifying the results of the
election for the ICANN board seat number 14. 

Then we'll review our current status on various policy items. 

And this will include a discussion on some of the feedback we've received on
the recent WHOIS decision. 

First I just want to confirm who we have at the meeting today. 

And I'll just do a roll call. 

Do we have Marilyn Cade?

>>MARILYN CADE:   Here.

>>BRUCE TONKIN: Ute Decker? Is not here, I believe. 

Absent with apologies. 

Lucy Nichols. 

You're here. 

Kiyoshi Tsuru I believe is attending via phone conference. 

Tony Holmes. 

Tony Harris. 

Greg Ruth. 

>>GREG RUTH:   Yes.

>>BRUCE TONKIN: I believe we have Robin gross remote via phone.  Norbert
Klein is absent with apologies. 

Mawaki Chango. 

Yes. 

Bruce Tonkin is here. 

Ross Rader I believe is participating via phone. 

Tom Keller. 

Thank you. 

Cary Karp is over there. 

Ken Stubbs. 

>>KEN STUBBS:   Here.

>>BRUCE TONKIN: Thank you.  June Seo. 

Thank you, June. 

Maureen is absent with apologies. 

Avri Doria?

>>AVRI DORIA:   Here.

>>BRUCE TONKIN: Thank you, Avri.  Sophia Bekele. 

>>SOPHIA BEKELE:   Here.

>>BRUCE TONKIN: Thank you, Sophie.  We have Bret Fausett from ALAC is on the
phone conference. 

Suzanne Sene, who's the GAC representative, is absent with apologies. 

Okay. 

Are there any updates to any statements of interest any member of council
wishes to make?

No?

Okay. 

The next item on the agenda, then, is to ratify the results of the election
for ICANN board seat number 14, which is the number of that particular seat. 

The GNSO Council has basically been running an election over the last couple
of months. 

And the -- and I guess just give people an idea of the timeline. 

The first round of the ballot was distributed on the 8th of June. 

We then received results after the first round on the 15th of June. 

The results of the first round were that we had two members with significant
number of votes and one -- just get the results here right. 

So the first round had Rita Rodin with 12 votes, Philip Sheppard with 11, and
Michael Geist with four. 

And then we moved into a second round, removing the candidate with the lowest
number of votes. 

A ballot was distributed on the 15th of June. 

And on the 21st of June, that ballot closed. 

There was 20 out of 21 votes that were cast. 

One was not cast due to a technical problem. 

The final results of the second ballot were, Rita Rodin, 15 votes, which is a
sufficient majority for election, Philip Sheppard with 11 votes. 

What we are doing here today is ratifying that the vote was conducted in
accordance with the procedures of the GNSO Council and that each of you have
checked the vote that you recorded to confirm that it has been correctly
recorded and that the vote is correct. 

So I'd just like to, I guess, put a motion that the GNSO Council ratifies the
election results for ICANN board seat number 14, and the results of that
election were, Rita Rodin, 15 votes, and Philip Sheppard, 11 votes. 

Do I have a seconder for that motion?

Thank you. 

I just wish to confirm that those that are on the phone are able to hear. 

Can I just confirm that?

>> (inaudible).

>>BRUCE TONKIN: Okay.  While they're doing that, I think I'll take votes from
those members of council that are present. 

So I'll start with Marilyn Cade, how do you cast your vote?

>>MARILYN CADE:   Yes.

>>BRUCE TONKIN:   Lucy Nichols?

>>LUCY NICHOLS:   Yes.

>>BRUCE TONKIN: Tony Holmes? Tony Harris?

>>TONY HARRIS:   Yes.

>>BRUCE TONKIN:   Greg Ruth?

>>GREG RUTH:   Yes.

>>BRUCE TONKIN: Okay.  Mawaki Chango?

>>MAWAKI CHANGO:   Yes.

>>BRUCE TONKIN: Bruce Tonkin, I'll vote in favor.  Tom Keller?

>>THOMAS KELLER:   Yes.

>>BRUCE TONKIN: Thank you, Tom.  Cary Karp?

Ken Stubbs?

>>KEN STUBBS:   Yes.

>>BRUCE TONKIN:   June Seo?

>>JUNE SEO: Yes.  Avri Doria?

>>AVRI DORIA:   Yes.

>>BRUCE TONKIN:   And Sophia Bekele?

>>SOPHIA BEKELE:   Yes.
.

>>BRUCE TONKIN: And now I'll move to take phone votes.  Starting first with
Alistair Dixon, can you please confirm that you are present?

>> Alistair Dixon:  Yes for me.

>>BRUCE TONKIN:   Can you just repeat for me first that you're present at this meeting.

>> Alistair Dixon:  (inaudible).

>>BRUCE TONKIN:   Can you hear me, Alistair?

>> Alistair Dixon: I can hear, sorry.  Can you repeat, please. 

>>BRUCE TONKIN: Okay.  Alistair, we have a motion -- can you just hold it in
front of the speaker?

Right. 

Alistair, we -- it's a little complex technology here. 

Alistair, we have a motion on the table before the GNSO Council that the GNSO
Council ratifies the election results for ICANN board seat number 14 and that
the results of that election are correct and the results are Rita Rodin, 15
votes, and Philip Sheppard, 11 votes. 

Do you agree with that motion?

Please say yes or no. 

>> Alistair Dixon:  Yes.

>>BRUCE TONKIN: Okay.  I think that was "yes."

Okay. 

Next on the list is Kiyoshi Tsuru. 

Kiyoshi, can you please confirm that you're on the phone. 

>>KIYOSHI TSURU:   Yes.

>>BRUCE TONKIN: Thank you.  And, Kiyoshi, can you -- did you hear the motion?

>>KIYOSHI TSURU:   I'm a little far away, but, yes, I did.

>>BRUCE TONKIN: Okay.  How do you --

>>KIYOSHI TSURU:   Yes.

>>BRUCE TONKIN:   How do you vote on the motion?

>>KIYOSHI TSURU:   Can you repeat that, please.

>>MARIA FARRELL:   Kiyoshi, the question is, how do you vote on the motion?

>>KIYOSHI TSURU:   Yes.

>>BRUCE TONKIN:   Yes, does that --

>>MARIA FARRELL:   That was a "yes," was it?

>>KIYOSHI TSURU:   Yes.

>>BRUCE TONKIN: Thank you, Kiyoshi.  Next is Robin Gross. 

>>MARIA FARRELL:   Robin, are you --

>>ROBIN GROSS:   Yes.

>>BRUCE TONKIN: Thank you, Robin.  Can you confirm that you heard the motion?

>>ROBIN GROSS:   Yes, I did hear the motion.

>>BRUCE TONKIN:   Can you please give your vote on the motion.

>>ROBIN GROSS:   I vote "yes" for the motion.

>>BRUCE TONKIN: Thank you, Robin.  Ross Rader?

>>ROSS RADER: Hello, everyone, I'm on the line.  I've heard the motion and I
vote "yes."

>>BRUCE TONKIN: Thank you, Ross.  Okay. 

That means that the motion carries. 

All those present at the meeting have voted in favor. 

Do we have Rita Rodin in the audience at all?

No. 

In any case, I would like to congratulate Rita on her election to the board. 

I'd also like to at this point invite Philip Sheppard to join the council. 

While Philip's coming back up onto the stage, I just want to make some
comments, I guess, about the three candidates that we had for the election. 

The GNSO process for an election is probably one of the more rigorous
election processes in the ICANN community. 

Each of the candidates to be nominated generally implies that they have the
strong support of members of the GNSO community. 

And once they are nominated, most of the candidates are typically interviewed
by most of the constituencies through either face-to-face or phone meetings. 

And then the candidates are interviewed by the whole council. 

So all three candidates have been interviewed. 

I think the outcome of that process was that all three candidates were
considered to be excellent candidates for the board. 

And we did have to choose one of the three. 

And that was Rita. 

But I'd also like to note that Philip Sheppard also received a significant
portion of votes, so it was a very close election. 

And Philip has served the council for many years now, both as the GNSO
Council, the names council. 

And we're very pleased that he chose to stand for the board, especially
given, I think, comments that I've heard earlier in the week, that you need
to spend something like 50% of your 24 hours of the day, which roughly
translates to 12 hours a day on the board, if you choose to take on that
role. 

So I do thank all three of the candidates. 

But I'd also like just a round of applause for Philip, who was the runner up. 

[ Applause ]

>>BRUCE TONKIN: Okay.  The next item of the agenda, then, is an update on the
new gTLD policy. 

I will attempt to just put up a rough timeline. 

This'll be fairly brief, status reports on some of these items, because they
were covered in the GNSO public forum yesterday. 

Can I just have a switch?

I think this is on circuit B, I think. 

Okay. 

So our work on new gTLDs, we presented the current work that we were doing on
that yesterday. 

Basically, we're planning to have an updated initial report by July. 

Then we are expecting to receive further public comment. 

We will probably have another physical meeting to finalize that report. 

That physical meeting at this stage may occur during September of this year. 

And then we'd have a final report for the community on -- in October, with a
target of trying to have this ready for the board in Sao Paolo. 

We have also sought advice from the GAC at an early stage on whether there
are any particular types of strings, perhaps country name strings, that they
would advise not be used for the purposes of a new gTLD. 

Are there any comments from council members on that timeline or anything you
wish to add on that?

Okay. 

The next item on the agenda, then, is. 

>>MARILYN CADE:   Bruce, can I ask a question?

>>BRUCE TONKIN:   Yes.

>>MARILYN CADE:   May I just reserve a spot under "other business" to present a resolution related to recognition of a loss in the community?

>>BRUCE TONKIN: Yes, certainly.  Okay, so the next topic is one of my
favorite topics, which is WHOIS. 

There has certainly been an extensive amount of input that we've received in
the last couple of weeks from a number of, I guess, large organizations on --
I guess it's pleasing to see organizations that perhaps haven't been involved
with ICANN for a while present their views on a particular area of work of
the GNSO. 

And we also received quite extensive input from both individual governments,
I believe the Australian government and the U.S.  government has responded as
a government and also from a number of agencies from some of the other areas
within the government. 

The general line of that feedback was, I guess, concern that the WHOIS
formulation -- and I've put it up on the screen there -- there was a concern
that organizations would only be able to use the information in WHOIS purely
for technical purposes. 

I think it has become -- it was -- at least -- we've also discovered that
members of council had different interpretations of the formulation amongst
those that both supported and rejected it on the basis of a particular
interpretation. 

The option before council is, therefore, to consider rewording that
particular definition of purpose so that it's clearer, or adding some
clarity, some additional points of clarity, in much the same way that the
ICANN bylaws have added points of clarity to the ICANN mission through
defining some core values. 

We do have the option to expand on this formulation by, I guess, making
either some statements of clarity or statements of principle that underlie
that formulation. 

Some of the things that were reported in the board meeting was, I guess,
confusion on perhaps the position of the entities that actually hold the
data, which are registries and registrars. 

The majority of the data, at least with respect to the dot com registry, is,
in fact, held by registrars and not held by anyone else. 

So registrars pretty much hold most of the data. 

The registrars' constituency discussed this extensively in the constituency
meeting. 

And because the registrar constituency is probably much like the GAC and it
probably takes six to 12 months to actually get a formal statement out, but
we have attempted to get a statement signed by individual registrars to
provide some clarity on at least the registrar position. 

So I'll just read that for council. 

The statement is that -- and this statement's probably, again, being
improved. 

But I'll just read the current draft. 

We, the undersigned registrars, wish to confirm that we will continue to
collect the data which is commonly called WHOIS data, as required by the
registrar accreditation agreement. 

This data is all currently displayed to the general public. 

And we'll continue to provide access to such data by law enforcement,
intellectual property, ISPs, and other legitimate users, through appropriate
processes. 

Registrars are open to improve those processes for more efficient access by
legitimate users. 

Registrars store this information for the lifetime of their agreement with
ICANN, plus an additional three years. 

Registrars also note that other useful data, such as ICANN protocol addresses
used by a registrant when registering a domain name, and credit card
information, is also stored. 

This information is also available for law enforcement access through
appropriate processes. 

Registrars continue to support privacy protection for the personal data of
natural persons. 

The reason for making that statement is to provide clarity that at least the
registrars do not consider the word "issues" that appears in this
formulation, registrars do not consider the word "issues" to be constrained
to technical issues only. 

And so we wish to provide some clarity on that. 

Now the options before council, then, are to perhaps -- I think it's
recognized that that definition of purpose should be improved. 

The question is, what's the best timing to do that and what's the best
process to do that. 

Defining the purpose in a clear, one sentence has been -- proven to be very
difficult for the WHOIS task force. 

And that's why it was that they referred it to the council for the council to
decide on it. 

And it's certainly clear that the council itself struggled to agree on any
particular formulation. 

And this was the formulation that was chosen by the council. 

But I think perhaps with further input from the community over a period of
time, we can improve this. 

In the short term, perhaps the closest we can do, rather than spending our
time on the formulation in the next month or so, would be to add some points
of clarity that have come out of at least those that did support this
formulation as to their intent. 

And that may, perhaps, alleviate some of the concerns that we've heard from
external parties. 

However, in parallel, I think most of us that I've spoken to continue to
support the work of the WHOIS task force and encourage the WHOIS task force
to continue with its current work, as was explained by a member of the task
force, Avri Doria, in the GNSO forum yesterday. 

And so rather than putting this formulation back to the task force, it should
stay at the council level. 

But the WHOIS task force should continue their work on improving and making
recommendations for the improvement of WHOIS. 

At that point, I guess I'll open this up for discussion to hear the views of
the council members and see if we can agree on next steps. 

I'll take a queue. 

So I think we have Marilyn Cade. 

Was that Lucy?

Ken Stubbs. 

Anyone else?

Mawaki. 

Okay. 

Go ahead, Marilyn. 

>>MARILYN CADE: I take note of a communication from one of our fellow
councillors, Ross Rader, who I think is online, and would just agree with him
that many who have been here have perhaps in the past day or two had an
immersion experience.  I might say that, not being here Monday and Tuesday,
I've only been sprinkled. 

If you're a Protestant, you might recognize that reference. 

But taking this very seriously, I would like to see us divide -- or separate
some elements of the work. 

And I believe and support the idea that the task force continue its work. 

I would like to suggest that discussion on purpose should take place at the
council level and should include a discussion with representatives from the
GAC, subcommittee from the ccNSO, from the ASO, and a -- I would hope the
chair of the SESAC, in order to examine the "purpose" topic. 

I agree we need to make progress on this. 

And given that in Sunday's meeting with Government Advisory Committee, there
was an agreement to try to have a discussion, an informal discussion about
the principles that they are developing in two areas, but one of those areas
is WHOIS, I think we might see if we could have at least an hour preliminary
discussion on how to advance the work perhaps on Thursday afternoon. 

In the meantime, the task force would be able to continue its work. 

I think we need to ask the task force to examine its timeline, which we've
just put forward at the task force, and take this parallel work activity into
account in their timeline. 

>>BRUCE TONKIN: A comment in terms of the parallel work.  I mean, I think
although we've had -- although I'm not hearing anyone suggest that the WHOIS
task force do any -- make any changes to the purpose as it's currently
drafted, I do expect the WHOIS task force would take note of the input that
has been received in recent weeks to help guide their further work. 

>>LUCY NICHOLS: The task force made a request to the council for a definition
on the purpose of WHOIS.  And I think the council filled that request. 

And we voted on that definition. 

And the definition that we accepted, by majority vote, should now go to the
task force. 

And as you noted earlier, the task force should take into consideration the
comments that have been made and further their work, continue their work on
the issue. 

I also, having said that, appreciate that the councillors who are not here
are perhaps not in a position to vote on the matter. 

>>BRUCE TONKIN: Okay.  Ken Stubbs. 

>>KEN STUBBS: Yes, Bruce.  My personal feeling is that we -- as Lucy
indicated, we've already voted on this. 

But from a practical standpoint, I think the best thing to do would be to
prepare a -- I don't know whether you want to call it a report or a
compendium. 

I think if we're going to be making changes -- and I certainly am not against
the idea of making changes -- I think that the best approach to do would be
to take the comments from the various constituencies in the various areas,
and by "the comments," I'm talking about the interpretations. 

We've already had long discussions about the assumptions that were made, at
least in our constituency. 

And I have had discussions with both the council, as well as individual
members of other constituencies, as to what specific assumptions were made in
that constituency with respect to the votes that were taken. 

And I think if we could put them together in a document and send that back
down to the task force so that the task force understands the underlying
positions that the various constituencies take with respect to the actions
that the council has taken, it would give the task force more direction. 

As -- for instance, I mean, we've talked about the fact the registry
constituency, the presumption was always that access would be made available
on a basis similar to what the registrars stated their -- you know, to law
enforcement, appropriate uses by other members of the community. 

But I think you would be better off to let the task force deal with that as
opposed to dealing with it on a council level. 

That's my personal feeling. 

>>BRUCE TONKIN: Can I just clarify what you said? pAnd I think at least what
I heard made sense. 

Are you suggesting that each of the constituencies work with their respective
council members to provide a supporting statement as to the reasons why they
supported formulation 1?

Is that correct?

That's not the same as asking the task force to do it. 

>>KEN STUBBS: Well, I guess that's part of it.  At the same point in time, I
think it's important for the constituency -- This needs to be a public
document. 

I think -- and the reason is, it's clear to me that there are various members
of the community and various members of other supporting organizations, the
GAC, and so forth, who clearly need to understand the tone. 

And even though there have been comments and representations made, it might
be easier if we had a compendium. 

The reason I say that is very -- is this: There are many people from various
cultures who've had the opportunity to be exposed to the presentations that
were made both in the public forum as well as the GAC. 

But in some cases, those presentations need to be -- and that information
needs to be assimilated and restructured in a format that's more
understandable within their own specific cultures, you know. 

No offense, but if I was Korean or if I was -- my primary language was Bahasa
Malay, I might want to take a written document and be able to explain it to
members in my community by translating it or working with it in my own
community. 

So that's why I suggested some sort of a written compendium that can be put
together. 

I hope you understand the tone of what I'm saying. 

>>BRUCE TONKIN: Okay.  So part of that is partly what -- capturing the
comments that we received during the GAC and from the other parties; is that
also what you're suggesting?

So that's a staff action that we can seek, is to write up some of that in a
clear format. 

Is that correct?

>>KEN STUBBS: I think -- I think that's the case, Bruce.  And the reason I
say that is because there's been a flood of correspondence from various
communities in reaction to their understanding of the formulation. 

So I think for all intents and purposes, we need to include the
correspondence. 

But we also need to make it quite clear that each one of the constituencies
may have a specific position that motivated them to instruct their
representatives to vote in a specific way on these formulations. 

And I think it -- it's -- it probably provides more transparency, number one. 

But, number two, it makes it a little easier to understand how the processes
-- the basis for the process moving forward and how it will be managed from
there. 

I'm not trying to add -- my God, we've within at this for six years. 

If this takes an extra 30 days, that's a real shape. 

I'm just saying that I'd rather have something that isn't criticized in the
future because people didn't understand the motivation and the logic and the
assumptions behind decisions that will be made in the future on this issue. 
'Cause it's clearly an incendiary issue. 

>>BRUCE TONKIN: Okay.  I have Mawaki, and then I have Greg, and then I think
-- was Lucy?

And Tony. 

Anyone else?

Avri. 

Anyone else?

Go ahead, Mawaki. 

>>MAWAKI CHANGO: Thanks, Bruce.  I would say I don't see any problem with the
registrars' statement, if I understood it clearly. 

I think instead of reviewing -- changing the formulation at this point in
time, which I don't really feel comfortable of doing, and instead of issuing
another comprehensive report explaining each constituency's motivations,
maybe we could consider making an additive declaration for -- as we suggested
yesterday or the day before yesterday with the board, to explain or to remove
the misunderstanding points. 

For example, that statement could just say something like, the definition or
the formulation of WHOIS purpose by the formulation 1 that we voted does not
preclude that data to be collected and does not preclude that data be
available for law enforcement. 

There are a lot of things we do that are not defined as having for purpose to
be available or to be -- I mean, to be available for law enforcement, but,
nevertheless, if there's an illegal issue, law enforcement will have access
to those things through due process. 

So this -- I think we need to make -- to explain that this formulation is
just a definition within the confines of ICANN mission. 

What is not said there does not -- it doesn't mean that it's not possible. 

If there is an issue, if there is a legitimate need to access the data, it
must be possible. 

So the part that we didn't include in this definition for law enforcement
does not imply that we are opposing the data to be available for law
enforcement. 

That's one point. 

I think even in the registrar statement, I noted that they were talking about
appropriate processes. 

Okay. 

Appropriate processes or due processes, I think it's more or less the same. 

The thing is, maybe the task force will have to define more clearly under
what conditions the data might be available for law enforcement or for
legitimate purpose. 

But the definition as we voted on, that does not imply that for legitimate
purposes the data will not be available. 

And much less that the data will not be collected. 

Now, if we need -- if we want to request the task force or the GNSO to do
some additional work, I will suggest that we don't go beyond two weeks, two
weeks' time period, to allow the task force to proceed with this work. 

Thank you. 

>>BRUCE TONKIN: Ken, I'll just add you to the queue.  Greg Ruth. 

>>GREG RUTH: I believe that the approach suggested by Ken is not going to be
very useful.  We did not -- we, as council members, did not all agree on
Formulation 1.  So for us to each -- for each constituency to explain how we
felt about this issue back down to the task force is just going to re-open
the entire debate at task force level and solve nothing.  I also disagree
with the -- what's basically the queen of hearts approach that we can say
that words mean exactly what we want them to. 

Formulation 1 is very plain English description of a very narrow purpose for
WHOIS data. 

It says -- When it refers to issues, it refers to issues associated with the
records in the domain name system name server. 

That has nothing to do with -- in a name server, there is no information
about addresses, phone numbers, contact information or anything like that. 

There's no private information in there. 

So this is -- These issues, according to Formulation 1, are only issues
relating to the correct configuration of records within the name server and
their resolution. 

I think that I have to agree with Marilyn that this issue should be discussed
and solved at the GNSO council level before -- or in parallel with the work
that the task force is doing.  Only then will we be able to have a clear
understanding of what the purpose of this information is. 

I think it is also unproductive to take the approach that whatever is not
forbidden is allowed.  So that if Formulation 1 does not specifically forbid
the use of information for law enforcement and so forth, that is obviously
allowed.  Or anything that's not -- I don't think -- I think the reason you
have a formulation for the purpose is to say exactly what the information is
for.  Not to just give one example of what the information is for. 

So presumably, what is not in Formulation 1 is not something that a registrar
can be held to. 

Therefore, if we think that there are things that are not in Formulation 1
explicitly stated that the registrars should be held to, then we ought to
expand the formulation or expand our understanding of the formulation at the
council level. 

>>BRUCE TONKIN: Thank you, Greg.  Just one comment, just one of the things
just highlight for me some of the struggles here.  Because a lot of what you
said seemed to be relating to information as opposed to a WHOIS service,
which is about display of certain portion of that information. 

And I think Philip Sheppard raised this in his revised formulation at the
last council meeting that we spoke on this. 

But one of the things we haven't done, I suppose, is define a purpose of data
collected.  And it may be that that's something, at a broader level, we could
work on, you know, picking up on Marilyn's discussion, with the GAC. 

Because they are kind of -- This is kind of a complex topic, and you have to
break the topic down into the -- with some structure. 

We define the work of the WHOIS task force to only really be focused on the
WHOIS service, which is the public access to information, and whether all of
that information should be accessed by everybody in the world.  That was
really the purpose of that task force. 

And then if access was removed from everybody in the world, then the issue
was we still needed -- that task force still needed to find what processes
would be required to access any of that information by legitimate users. 

And I think that's partly where a lot of the confusion comes from.  Because
this is a statement of purpose of the WHOIS service, which is the general
public service.  It's not a statement of the data that's collected, and it
never was intended to be. 

And I think that that just I think has led to confusion in the community. 

Because if you read that and you are thinking -- because you made the comment
that that doesn't include phone numbers and things like that. 

Well, actually, it does, because the first bit in black is very clear.  It
says, "provide information sufficient to contact a responsible party." That
is addresses and phone numbers.  Related to issues -- that can resolve issues
related to the configuration of records. 

The only issues that can possibly arise are from the configuration of
records, because that's what the DNS is.  So I have had this debate with
others in the community and I accept that I have a view that's obviously
different to yours.  But that just clarifies that we haven't got the
formulation right yet, in a way that's understandable. 

But I think if we are going to do what Marilyn suggests, which is sort of a
different exercise, I think, it is actually defining the data more generally,
what the purpose of the data is clearly, because that's not defined anywhere
either.  I didn't want to have that as a topic of the WHOIS task force,
because just that is quite a difficult thing to encapsulate.  But if we are
going to have that wider discussion with the GAC and CC and others, we
probably should look at it from the purpose of defining the data that is
collected and then you can look at it as the purpose of the WHOIS which is
the general public access to that, and then you might look at access by
legitimate users. 

Because the problem is today you are describing a system as you see it today
which are all one in the same.  The data collected and data displayed are the
same.  So when we define a purpose of the data displayed, I think, Greg, the
way you have worded that, you are interpreting that, at least in your mind,
as the purpose of the data collected, and it's not the same thing. 

Because once you change to what's displayed to some subset, they are now no
longer the same thing. 

You now have, as Philip pointed out some time ago, you have a definition of
the data and the reason why you are collecting the data, which is generally
required under privacy agreements.  Then you have a purpose for why you make
some of that public.  And then you have mechanisms for people who need
legitimate access to the data. 

And if you look at the registrar statement, if you talk to the registries, we
have a fairly clear idea of that because we look at it from a data modeling
point of view.  You have data you collect and you have different services
from a technical point of view for accessing that data. 

And that's how I think about it. 

But I understand if the community views that as being the definition of why
we're collecting data, I can understand where the confusion arises. 

>>GREG RUTH:  So, Bruce, do you think that the wider issue is outside of the terms of reference of the task force?

>>BRUCE TONKIN: Yes, I do.  Yeah.  Lucy. 

>>MARILYN CADE:  I want would be back in the queue.

>>BRUCE TONKIN:  Yeah.

>>LUCY NICHOLS: Just a question to Ken on his proposal.  If I understand you
correctly, each constituency would be allowed to explain how they interpreted
Formulation 1 before voting on it? No?

>>KEN STUBBS: Each one of the constituencies voted on these formulations. 
What I'm saying very simply is I was trying to provide the opportunity for
each constituency to provide a background as to why they voted the way they
voted. 

And basically, what I'm saying is in the case of the registry constituency,
there were certain assumptions that were made, taking into considering the
wording of the formulation. 

It's clear after the fact that there may very well be specific wordings in
the formulation that are confusing to other members of the community that
may, in the future, need to be considered.  But definitely need to be
considered in future actions of the task force. 

This position here is only part of a series of steps that will be taken by
the task force in arriving at specific recommendations to the council to vote
on which will then be forwarded to the board. 

We can spend the next three months talking about this specific thing.  And
all of the other additional work that needs to be done in the task force
could be put on hold because nobody knows what direction to move because all
of this stuff is still being debated. 

So what I'm saying is, get the information back down to the people who need
to move forward.  Give them a clear understanding, and include in the
compilation that goes to these people the comments that have been made
specifically, which are now literally all over the place. 

Greg has made some additional comments.  I, as a member of the task force, I
do not specifically recall the comments that Greg just made being addressed
to members of the task force before the formulations were finalized and
presented to the council to vote on. 

So the point I'm making very simply is that we have an ongoing dialogue about
one part of this process.  And I don't want to put the process on hold just
for this one dialogue. 

I think that we can move forward with a clear understanding -- the task force
members can move forward with a clear understanding of the environment in
which we need to operate in, and the impact of the work that they are doing. 

And we've gotten a lot more input now.  God, we waited for years for some of
the input.  I am hearing from associations that clearly had to have some sort
of a cognizance of these issues long before these formulations were presented
publicly, you know. 

I mean, I'm sorry, but you cannot tell me that the travel providers, that the
hoteliers, the restaurant owners, all these people in a room have been
sitting in a room totally devoid of any information and what the impact of
this whole process will have on them in the future. 

Now all of a sudden, you know --

So that's just my opinion.  The council can take my recommendation or not. 

>>BRUCE TONKIN:  I'll just go to the next person in the queue, which is Tony Holmes.

>>TONY HOLMES: Thank you, Bruce.  I think as council we need to face up to
the fact that we were asked to do a job, and we haven't done a very good job. 

And that's the reality.  We ended up with two formulations, and within the
council there was a complete 50/50 split in terms of constituencies across
those formulations. 

What that meant was that the weighted voting that applies to council drove
through an approval of one of those formulations. 

Since then, we have had a multitude of feedback, both from within ICANN and
outside of ICANN against that formulation. 

And that really underlines the fact that we haven't done a very good job. 

And I think it's totally inappropriate to now push this back to the be task
force, to say, well, this is what we did.  We didn't do it very well.  We've
got all these comments, so over to you.  Just go on and get on with it. 

It's totally inappropriate to do that. 

And there are lots of issues around this that I think council need to think
very carefully about. 

I'd like to pick up on one of the points that Mawaki made. 

To even ask the task force to look at conditions for law enforcement, it's
just given them a job that they can't possibly achieve, particularly if they
have to start considering who is going to have access to that information and
how that will work. 

So we need to scope this in a way that actually sets goals that are
achievable. 

And I agree that we need to define the purpose of the data, and doing that at
the council level is the appropriate way.  But not only at the council level. 

The volume of feedback we've had on this and the concern we've heard over the
last few days and the interest, I support the view that Marilyn put forward
that we need to tackle that task with the input of all of those who are
impacted by it and who have a view.  Because if we don't do it that way, what
we are likely to find is that further down the road, we're back in exactly
the same position we have been faced with this week where we think we have a
basis for moving forward and suddenly we get so many comments on that and so
many concerns that we have to go back to the start. 

We just can't afford to do that anymore. 

>>BRUCE TONKIN: Tony, thank you.  Let me just, just for the record, the vote
would still have passed without the weighted voting given that you have three
additional members of council that I believe did vote in favor of that that
weren't constituency members. 

So the number of votes cast would change, but it still would have passed,
just to make that clear. 

Secondly, the -- So if I just understand you, are you saying that you want to
stop the work of the WHOIS task force?

>>TONY HOLMES:  No, not at all, Bruce.  I think what we need to do is look at what the task force can do in the current environment and what has to
 be done at the council level.  That's what needs to be done with this.  Not to stop the work of the task force at all.

>>BRUCE TONKIN:  So I missed it.

>>TONY HOLMES: My point is not to stop the work of the task force at all. 
It's to scope out what the task force can do to carry on that work, and what
parts of that need to be done at the council level.  That's the key issue. 
Just in terms of your remarks, my whole point of making that remark was
really to say across the constituencies there was a split.  That was the
point of my making that comment. 

>>BRUCE TONKIN: Agreed.  There was a split.  Avri Doria. 

>>AVRI DORIA: At the moment, I really do want to make sure that we do
anything that does derail the work of the WHOIS task force.  We did have a
much argued over formulations.  It did come to some sort of decision though I
guess as what's happening a lot in ICANN these days is every time a decision
is made, somebody has a pile of paper that says "oh, I don't like your
decision," and we start to re-review it.  We start to sort of go through the
minutia of all the understandings that people may have had, and then we start
to question our decisions and move backwards.  And so I think that we sort of
have a default position that sort of says WHOIS moves forward.  The council,
as the council always would do, continues to talk about whatever it wants to
talk about. 

It is the one that's going to get the recommendations from the WHOIS. 

It's going to evaluate them on the basis of whatever our understandings are
at the time, and basically, though, what I'm really hoping we can do is
whatever we decide to do about re-reviewing our decisions or, you know,
inspecting all the lint involved in our decisions, that we don't stop forward
progress at this point. 

>>JUNE SEO:  Bruce, could you put me in the queue?

>>BRUCE TONKIN: June Seo.  Ken Stubbs. 

I'm reading this upside-down.  Marilyn Cade. 

>>MARILYN CADE: I am going to call the council's attention and the
community's attention and those members of the board who are here with us and
the staff's attention to something that I think is a serious risk factor in
the development of policy.  We have just lived through four years of the
WSIS, and many of us -- me among them, and my colleague sitting here beside
me and others sitting here at the dais and in the audience -- understood and
listened to the concerns expressed by governments about ICANN's role,
Internet Governance, and the topic of public policy and the importance of
governments having input in those areas of the Internet which they define as
public policy. 

We heard from the GAC members in Wellington an expression of concern about
the way that they can interact with council about areas of public policy. 
They put into their communique four areas -- five areas, sorry, two of which
are in the realm of responsibility of the GNSO. 

And we heard again from the governments, the GAC, when we met with them on
Sunday. 

The definition of the purpose for which data is collected is viewed by
governments as a public policy issue, not a purely technology policy issue or
technical policy issue. 

I think that one of the challenges that ICANN experienced in dealing with dot
triple X was a failure to engage early enough and interactively enough with
governments. 

Huge amounts of time and resources were committed from the community. 
Frustrations, disappointments, maybe even alienation developed because of a
failure to have dialogue early enough and interactively enough. 

I think WHOIS has the ability to reach that point, and I think the council
has a responsibility to not let that happen by embracing now the opportunity
to interact with the governments in a dialogue. 

>>CARY KARP:  Tom Keller.

>>THOMAS KELLER: Thank you, Bruce.  I just want to note I am in total
disagreement to with what Tony just said that we have done a bad job,
actually, with that.  We have done a job we asked for, and we've got two
formulations from the task force.  We decided upon one, and it was very
clear, at least for me, that not all people in the ICANN community and all
the stakeholders will like that. 

Having said that, I want to express my real deep frustration of the whole
process and the going right now. 

We, as a council, made the decision.  We all knew what was at stake.  We are
not discussing this for the first time.  Now we're getting push-back from the
world outside. 

I mean, that is okay in some way, and we should leave it as it is and push it
to the task force and let them decide what to do with that. 

I mean, there's still no decision taken on how exactly the whole scenery will
look like. 

So we don't know what access mechanisms there will be.  We have no clear idea
about what way and what paths down the road the WHOIS task force will choose
to solve that problem. 

So everything we can talk about now is 100% premature and very, very
frustrating. 

>>TONY HOLMES: Could I ask Tom a question, please, Bruce? I'd just like to
ask Tom whether he believes that within council, when we took that vote,
there was a common understanding of each of the propositions that were on the
table within council. 

>>THOMAS KELLER: Well, I would say yes.  I got a pretty clear understanding
of what was at stake, and I guess everybody had that understanding. 

We're not discussing this for the first time. 

And we made the decision on what we decided was best. 

And I know that it doesn't please all the people in this room. 

But, well, hey, that's what life is. 

And, you know, if we do not stick to our own rules, you know, and don't
believe that voting is settling finally a dispute, we're not sticking to our
own rules. 

And that's not the way a council should work. 

>>TONY HOLMES: That wasn't my question.  I wasn't asking what was at stake. 

I was asking whether the formulation had a common understanding across
council, the actual proposition that was on the table that we voted on, two
formulations, did we all understand those in the same way. 

That was my question. 

>>AVRI DORIA: May I ask a question about your question before he answers? Is
there ever a time when you can prove to me that there's a common
understanding about any piece of language?

>>TONY HOLMES: The answer to that is, there are certainly times when I can
prove that that doesn't exist.  And I believe that one of the most prominent
examples is this one. 

Because we've -- through the week, we've got to a stage where I believe Bruce
has been suggesting that we need to put more words around the proposition, we
need to explain it better, so that we do have that common understanding. 

And that -- that's the point. 

>>AVRI DORIA: I believe I can prove that anytime there is language that
people are agreeing to, not just this time.  Anytime we open up language and
start to look at the particular meanings of each word, the particular
meanings of each conjunction, the particular meanings of each phrase and how
they are juxtaposed to each other, we will have disagreements about it. 

The more we dig into meanings, the more we'll disagree about what things
mean. 

>>TONY HOLMES:   So, Avri, are you suggesting, then, that Bruce's proposal that we should work on providing clarification of this proposition is to
tally pointless and doesn't need to be done, because we don't do that on other things?

>>AVRI DORIA: No.  The question has been opened, so it's worth people
expressing what they think it meant. 

But I don't think that that changes the fact that people understood what it
meant, they voted on it, in essence. 

>>BRUCE TONKIN: Okay.  I don't want to have just a dialogue between two
council members, because that can be done offline. 

Tom, did you have anything else to say?

>>THOMAS KELLER: Well, I just want to answer, yes, I guess, most people, a
whole lot of people understood what we were voting on.  I mean, we even --
people opposed that recommendation or formulation 1 even came up with some
alternative voting -- with alternative wording. 

So I would suppose that if you even come -- can come up with alternative
wording, that you totally understand the issue. 

So it was very clear to me. 

And if it wasn't clear to any other councillor, he should have expressed that
and refused voting. 

But not voting on it and afterwards saying, "Oh, I didn't understand it, oh,
jeez."

>>BRUCE TONKIN:   Mawaki.

>>MAWAKI CHANGO: I didn't know I asked for the floor.  But I'm -- I want to
-- I'm happy to talk. 

I would like to say, actually, -- I mean, the GNSO Council is not the task
force, the WHOIS task force. 

It's not for the GNSO Council to tinker with this formulation now. 

The GNSO council has been asked to vote, and we voted. 

So are people suggesting that our votes was bad and we need to re-vote again?

If so, let us hear it clearly. 

If not, let the work proceed with the task force. 

And addressing something -- some point that Tony raised about my previous
points, I mean, I understand that the task force cannot list in detail all
the conditions and all the entities that may have the right of access to the
WHOIS database. 

But the thing is, we -- we need also to remember that Internet is global. 

It's not for one or two jurisdictions. 

There are many jurisdictions involved in all the territory of the Internet. 

And the registrars operate under some specific jurisdictions. 

So I guess there are provisions from those jurisdictions to which the
registrars are liable, on which the registrars are liable, I don't know. 

So, for example, for me, this definition of the purpose is, as I said, within
the confines of ICANN mission. 

If -- if, for example -- let me take an example here, a parallel. 

If I build a house, I don't build it for the purpose of law enforcement. 

But if I do something bad, law enforcement entities can come in and search. 

All right?

I don't have to define my house as built for law enforcement. 

It's something -- it's a shelter for me to live in. 

But there is jurisdiction there, there are legal provisions there to allow
law enforcement to come in and search if there is something wrong. 

So the last point I would like to make also is that in the best case, all
this will end up in a recommendation to the board. 

And it will be up to the board to accept it or not. 

I mean, people are wasting their time and energy and our time and energy to
-- asking us to reconsider this position. 

I think they should spend their time maybe at the level of the board or
somewhere up. 

Thank you. 

>>BRUCE TONKIN: Okay.  Just before we go on to the other speakers, what I'm
going to do now is, those in the queue that have not already spoken on the
topic I'll allow to speak. 

Those that have spoken already, I don't want to kind of repeat the whole
debate. 

What I will do at the -- and those remaining in the queue at the moment is
Sophia, who hasn't spoken yet, June hasn't spoken yet, and Cary hasn't spoken
yet. 

I also have Avri and Marilyn in the queue. 

What I'm going to do is, I'm going to go to Sophia, then June, then Cary. 

Then I'm going to break for ten minutes and I'm going to try and draft
something based on the different things I've heard people say and just see if
I can get a bit of a resolution for discussion, which I think is -- picks up
some of the comments people have made. 

Otherwise, we can sit here all day debating WHOIS. 

So, Sophia, please go ahead. 

>>SOPHIA BEKELE: Thank you, Bruce.  I think I've still lost my voice. 

Well, you know, I'm not sure even now. 

I'm more confused, more than even in today's discussion than I was, perhaps,
yesterday. 

But -- and I don't know if I'm -- I would say anything more than what already
anybody had said in that light. 

However, if we are deliberating on voting again between the two formulations,
going back and re-evaluating, re-evaluating the whole voting process, I'm not
sure if that's legitimate right now. 

But I see from the beginning, when the whole voting came to my table, I have
seen three major issues in terms of the clarification. 

I think there was that made a long time ago. 

And I see it. 

I responded then the same -- I will respond the same now. 

There are three things. 

One is, the whole -- the whole purpose of the WHOIS -- I think the WHOIS was
purely a technical definition in the beginning. 

And as it came in practice, it has really gone from -- come a long way. 

So I think, basically, it has raised legitimacy issue, is the WHOIS itself,
the definition, what the purpose of the WHOIS was the issue at the time. 

And I don't even know until today if we have defined that properly. 

And I think probably that's one area of confusion or clarification. 

And the second one is, there seems to be a big gap between the two
formulations. 

And, basically, particularly the use, quote, unquote, seems to be out of
scope of ICANN's mission. 

And when we're talking about ICANN mission, this case is trying to define if
ICANN, you know, is supposed to be policing the Internet. 

Is it in law enforcement. 

Those areas. 

And so if we say that, and given that that's out of scope, then it -- you
know, it legitimizes formulation 2. 

And then the third area will be the scope within the terms of reference of
the task force. 

We have also a debate on that. 

Is it within the scope of the task force. 

And that should be considered. 

Here again, it's the collection of data versus the purpose of data. 

So with these three areas not being clear, I don't know how we moved forward
at the time, and I don't know how we're trying to move forward at this time. 

So my view is, if we have to re-evaluate it, then maybe it should be done at
the council level, not necessarily at the constituency or the task force,
working with the task force, or allowing the task force to do what it does. 

I think council needs to get involved, maybe, in the redefinition of these
three areas. 

This is the only comment I have. 

>>BRUCE TONKIN: Thank you, Sophie.  June Seo. 

>>JUNE SEO: First off, I'm speaking of my personal opinion as a councillor. 
This doesn't necessarily represent our position within the gTLD registry
constituency. 

And I'm not a part of the task force, either, so I am an observer there. 

But I am still speaking on this because we can still use this as evidence for
future improvement. 

I think we cannot be overcareful in selecting our words, especially in a
situation like this, having -- producing some definition. 

So especially when there are stakeholders with no technical background, some
of the words we selected in formulation 1 could be misleading, creating
further confusion. 

So one suggestion I'd like to make is removing the -- in the red sentence,
"the configuration of," (inaudible) that we may reduce some confusion among
stakeholders with no technical background. 

So I think that would be sufficient. 

>>BRUCE TONKIN: Thank you, June.  Cary Karp. 

>>CARY KARP:   I pass the microphone, Bruce.

>>BRUCE TONKIN: Okay.  Is there anyone that would like to comment that hasn't
spoken?

That would be Philip or -- yeah, I think Philip is the only one who hasn't
spoken. 

>>JUNE SEO:   Bruce, one more thing is, we may replace "name server" with more common description so that hoteliers and travel association people c
an understand what that means.

>>BRUCE TONKIN: Certainly, personally, I agree.  I think a lot of those words
were probably derived from people who are experts. 

I think it was probably drafted originally by Ross Rader, I'm guessing, who's
obviously got a very technical background. 

And when I read that, it's very clear to me as well. 

But I think -- I agree with you. 

When you're looking at the sort of people who are providing input, that
clearly would not be easily understood. 

Philip. 

>>PHILIP SHEPPARD: Although I haven't spoken directly, Bruce, I had noticed
that my words had been heard indirectly in the references you made to earlier
comments.  And I'll just say that I think that I'd like to reiterate that
clarification that you recognized there would be very useful in the
separation of these issues, because I still believe that is the fundamental
point that has led to a lack of consensus on this council and confusion in
the wider community. 

So I think attempting to break through that would be very useful. 

And I'm very pleased to have seen the statement by a number of the
significant registrars, which I think is already a very good attempt to break
through that level of confusion. 

>>JUNE SEO:   Bruce, just for our record, if I may, I'd like to just read the sentence I suggest for our future consideration.

>>BRUCE TONKIN: Rather than word-Smith it now, can you E-mail it to the
council list? At this point, I suggest we break for ten minutes. 

It will be an opportunity for visiting any restrooms, but also I think I'll
try and have a go at drafting a bit of a motion based on what I have heard,
and so we can move forward. 

(Break.)

>>BRUCE TONKIN: I would just like to reconvene this meeting.  I have drafted
some test which I hope captures some of the good suggestions of the members
of council.  I have e-mailed that motion to the council list for those of you
that are busy reading your e-mail. 

And I have also displayed it on the screen for members of the audience. 

So the proposed motion reads as follows: In response to the extensive
community and government input on the definition of the purpose of WHOIS, the
GNSO council agrees to undertake the following steps:

Step one, which was suggested by Ken, is that each council member that voted
in favor of the definition will provide a brief explanation of the reason for
supporting the resolution and their understanding of its meaning. 

Now, I'm not going to put this in the motion but just for clarity, council
members obviously are free to communicate with their constituencies on that,
and groups of council members that voted in favor are also welcome to make a
joint statement.  So I'm not going to -- I'm leaving that open.  So I'm just
writing this in the most general sense.  So it just says that each council
member that voted in favor of the definition will provide a brief explanation
of the reason for supporting the resolution and their understanding of its
meaning. 

And this will again, I believe, help the public record with that respect. 

And picking up on Greg Ruth's comment, as he voted against it, he doesn't
need to provide a reason why he votes in favor. 

Two: The ICANN staff will provide a summary of the other interpretations of
the definition that have been expressed by the community and governments. 

While I accept that people might have different interpretation, and as Avri
has pointed out, but it would be scary if those definitions were wildly
different as opposed to subtly different.  And I think we are in the category
of wildly different interpretations at the moment, which means the wording is
probably not the best. 

Three, and this picks up Marilyn's recommendation slightly abbreviated, the
council will undertake a dialogue with the GAC and SSAC on developing a
broadly understandable, notice that.  Maybe I'll put that in red. 

So basically don't ask me for a definition, is probably the best thing. 

A broadly understandable definition of the purposes for which the current
data required in the RRA is collected. 

That's kind of shorthand, but basically the registry/registrar agreement
specifies a series of data elements that must be collected. 

There was also no current definition of why they are collected.  Each
registrar collects information for a range of operational reasons for that
particular registrar, but I think there's benefit in having a more broadly
understandable definition from the point of those users outside of the
registrar that need -- that may need access to that information. 

So repeating, the council will undertake a dialogue on developing a broadly
understandable definition of the purposes for which the current data required
in the RRA is collected. 

Now, that's not the same as the purpose we have just defined.  It's actually
something that hasn't been done yet. 

Four: The GNSO council requests that the WHOIS task force continue with their
work as specified in the terms of reference, taking into account the recent
input that has been provided. 

Five: The GNSO council will take the final report from the WHOIS task force
that addresses all terms of reference, and the definition of purpose of
collecting data derived from the dialogue with the GAC and SSAC, and consider
improving the wording of the WHOIS service definition so that it is broadly
understandable. 

And then finally, the council -- the GNSO council notes that the current
definition is related to the service that provides public access to some or
all of the data collected, and is not a definition of the purpose of the data
itself. 

So that's the motion. 

Do I have a seconder for that motion?

>>TONY HOLMES:(hand raised).

>>BRUCE TONKIN:  Is that a second?

>>TONY HOLMES:  No.  I just want to discuss --

>>BRUCE TONKIN: I need a seconder before we discuss it.  Marilyn, thank you. 

So that's Tony.  Was it Ken as well?

>>KEN STUBBS:  No, I was raising my hand to second.

>>BRUCE TONKIN: So speaking on the motion is Tony Holmes, Avri, Marilyn,
Mawaki.  Anyone else?

And just note, if it appears that I am ignoring you it's because I actually
have a light shining right in my eyes.  It's not always easy to see when
someone is raising their hand. 

And Philip. 

Okay, go ahead, Tony. 

>>TONY HOLMES:  It's a fairly minor point but on point 4, I would just like to add on to the end of that, "And any further clarification as it beco
mes available from council."

>>BRUCE TONKIN: So four reads currently the GNSO council requests that the
WHOIS task force continue with their work as specified in the terms of
reference, taking into account the recent input that has been provided.  And
your change?

>>TONY HOLMES:  My change is to add to that "and any further clarification as it becomes available from council."

>>BRUCE TONKIN: Do you accept that amendment, Marilyn? Okay.  Avri. 
Actually, Marilyn, but you can go first anyway, Avri. 

>>AVRI DORIA: Okay.  I have two things.  One, and I guess this is just a
problem I am having in understanding this motion.  And that's that I don't
understand how one does a strict division between the purpose of a service
and the purpose of a data within that service.  And so I'm not sure that I
understand that division.  So certainly don't understand the final statement
of it and the note that that is the issue. 

So when you have a service that is based on a database that has data, the
purpose of the service and the purpose of the data seem to me to be
inextricably linked.  And to say that we're talking about only the purpose of
the service but not the purpose of the data is confusing to me. 

The other issue that --

>>BRUCE TONKIN: Can I slow down on that? Because I'd like you to help me with
wording, if it's not clearly understood.  But just to give a general answer
to what you have talked about, you currently get a DNS service today, if you
type in a domain name, you get a DNS service with that. 

But I'm not giving you the credit card that I collected when I set up that
domain name. 

So at any point in time, a service doesn't necessarily mean -- a service
that's provided to you, let's call it the DNS service, doesn't necessarily
mean that you necessarily have access to the data that I collected to create
that service.  Okay?

That's just a generic comment. 

>>AVRI DORIA: I think that's a little different because the credit card data
that's being talked about is not part of -- I mean, that's extra information
that you collect as a business.  That's not data that's defined as part of
the WHOIS data.  That's other data that you happen to have. 

>>BRUCE TONKIN: I'm being fairly careful here that I'm not -- I didn't use
the word "WHOIS data." I used "the data that's collected as required by the
RRA," because that's exactly the issue that's at stake, Avri, because people
are confusing those two things.  The WHOIS is a service I provide to you for
a purpose, and that purpose -- we can improve the wording, but the purpose as
it's currently defined is, if we just look at the first part of that rather
than the second part of that, the WHOIS service as it is currently defined is
providing information sufficient to contact a responsible party for a
particular domain name who can resolve, or reliably pass on data to a party
who can resolve. 

That's basically -- if we just focus on the black for a second.  And maybe it
could just be resolve issues, full stop.  Because the red stuff is the bit
that seems to be the most misunderstood part. 

So that's a service that allows you to contact the party; right? But I'm
collecting a lot of other information, like the technical contact, the
billing information and other things, which are all other things that are
there.  And so I'm trying to define the purpose of the data that I collect as
in the RRA; right? Which is separate from the purpose of WHOIS, which is a
public service that is, as it's defined here, allows you to contact a
responsible party. 

>>AVRI DORIA:  Yes, but the problem I am having with the undifferentiated notion with data is that, yes, there's a great amount of data that's coll
ected.  Some of it is collected specifically for the purposes of WHOIS.  And that would be what I consider WHOIS data.

>>BRUCE TONKIN:  Right.

>>AVRI DORIA:  And that that WHOIS data and the WHOIS service have the same purpose.

>>BRUCE TONKIN: But can I just stop you there.  That's nowhere defined that
it is collected for the purposes of WHOIS.  Right? So that's what that's
about.  It's basically if you just read the RRA, the RRA has a clause that
says here's some data that you much collect.  It's a contractual provision of
collecting data.  It has a completely separate clause about providing public
access to information. 

Neither of those two clauses define purpose, neither the purpose of
collecting nor the purpose for providing this free service. 

And right now, as I was saying before, they are inextricably linked but they
don't need to be. 

>>AVRI DORIA:  I have a problem with breaking that link in this resolution.  And yes, they are currently inextricably linked, to say that that data
 now becomes part of a general pool of data and we consider it in the same way as we consider all other data, and therefore, any work that's done i
n the WHOIS service does not relate to any of the data, including that data which is inextricably linked at the moment, is problematic for me.  And
 I don't really understand taking a motion to basically break that current inextricable link.

>>BRUCE TONKIN: That probably means you will be voting against the motion
because I can't think, on my feet, of a way of dealing with what you are
saying.  The --

>>AVRI DORIA:  I basically don't believe that we can, in the single Fiat of this motion, say that the data collected is not -- that the data collec
ted that is inextricably linked to the WHOIS service is not part of the WHOIS service, and that what pertains -- what decisions pertain to WHOIS se
rvice do not also pertain to the data that is used in the WHOIS service inextricably linked by the contracts, say.

>>BRUCE TONKIN:  But not inextricably linked by the contracts is what I'm trying to say.  You are linking it in your mind, yes, but --

>>AVRI DORIA:  It has historically been --

>>BRUCE TONKIN:  Yes, yes.  I agree with that.

>>AVRI DORIA:  So there is the historical link that that data is collected for the purposes of WHOIS.

>>BRUCE TONKIN:  No.

>>AVRI DORIA:  Not only --

>>BRUCE TONKIN: That's what I'm saying.  I don't believe that is.  WHOIS is
quite a narrow purpose.  If we deal with this Formulation 1, assuming
Formulation 1 is on the table and not changing it for a second; right? And so
that formulation, you have an understanding of what that means; correct?

>>AVRI DORIA:  Mm-hmm.

>>BRUCE TONKIN:  Which is your understanding because I believe we all have different.  But I believe you voted in favor.

>>AVRI DORIA:  Yes, I voted in favor.  Although at the time I did say it was a little too loose.

>>BRUCE TONKIN: You wanted it tighter.  I would say that the WHOIS work
itself is actually starting to break down that link, Avri, because if someone
changes the data that's made available via the public service in that task
force -- let's say the task force recommends removing data element number 5;
okay? But that doesn't change the fact that we still have to collect data
element number 5. 

I'm saying we need to define a purpose of why we are still collecting that
data element number 5, if you like.  Because by the WHOIS task force making a
recommendation to remove the data element from public display, as soon as
they do that, they break that link. 

And so this motion is about saying let's engage people in a wider discussion
about why we are collecting all this data, because it has a range of
different uses, from -- like law enforcement, for example.  I think Mawaki
gave a very good definition. 

I might provide my address and phone number in a white pages for the purposes
of you being able to contact me; right? That's why I put it in there.  Or
even in the Yellow Pages, I might advertise it fairly broadly.  I am doing
that so you, Avri, can contact me. 

I am not providing that for the purpose so that law enforcement can find me. 
But law enforcement can use that information to find me.  So it's a different
thing; right?

So the reason why I am publishing that information in that directory which is
a white pages is so you can contact me. 

However, I can request a silent number in a white pages. 

So the telco company has collected my name, address, and other things,
probably primarily so they can bill me and presumably so they can provide
that phone service into my physical house.  But my publishing of that in the
white pages is not so the phone company can connect that to my house; right?

I'm giving them my address so they can connect it into my house, and law
enforcement has access to that information if I start making obscene phone
calls, they could go to the phone company and the phone company could say
yeah, this information I collected at the time of providing the service, this
is where they are. 

But my publication of that information in the white pages is a different
purpose. 

So the purpose the data is collected there is not the same as the purpose for
which it's in the directory. 

And I, from a privacy protection point of view, might say I don't want it
published in that -- I don't want you to be able to contact me, actually, but
I do want to have a phone service. 

So with WHOIS, I register a domain name.  Let's say I'm the registrar.  You
might register your domain name with me, but you don't want to be contacted
regarding that domain name.  Let's say you are an individual and you are just
running a blog or something.  But law enforcement will still have access to
that information that I collected. 

>>AVRI DORIA:  I think it's still different, but we get into nuances because the purposes that the telephone company collected that data was so tha
t they know where to send the bill.  It was not so that they would be able to give it to law enforcement.  Law enforcement is not a purpose.  It's 
just something that law enforcement does.

>>BRUCE TONKIN:  Yeah, I agree.

>>AVRI DORIA:  And they decide that they want data so they go get data.

>>BRUCE TONKIN: But Avri, I am just answering you.  I am not trying to define
purposes here.  I am giving you a reason why the data is not necessarily
inextricably linked and I am giving you a practical example of a phone
address and I am saying WHOIS may end up like that.  At the moment, I agree
it's not today.  But in the future it may be different.  It may be that I
don't necessarily publish something for some reason.  But the reason why I
collected it is different. 

>>MARILYN CADE:  Mr. Chairman, I have a point of order.

>>BRUCE TONKIN:  Yes.

>>MARILYN CADE:  Can I ask that we take clarifying questions on your resolution?  This discussion, while it is extremely important and useful, I th
ink actually belongs in the work that the council would do.  Clarifying questions.  But I believe we need to move the resolution on, put the resolu
tion to a vote, and see if we're going to be able to advance this work.

>>BRUCE TONKIN:  The reason why I am answering is because Avri is not clear on the resolution.

>>MARILYN CADE: I hear you, but we could each have 30 questions.  So at some
point I would like us to --

>>BRUCE TONKIN:  Yes, this is the struggle with wording.

>>AVRI DORIA: The second clarifying question, maybe it's not a clarifying
question, but how does -- what was it? Sorry, I got so involved in the other
one. 

Okay.  Four, "With as amended" not leave the WHOIS task force with a moving
target, constantly. 

.

>>BRUCE TONKIN: There's two elements to that.  One is the WHOIS task force
should always be taking into account public input and would always, if the
council provides further clarification, I would expect them to take that into
account.  I'm not, however, suggesting in this motion that at this point in
time we change that definition that was on that previous page. 

So that taking into account input. 

If the council decided to change terms of reference, it can do that at any
time.  These are not decisions that are taken lightly, but I think the intent
of Tony's clarification is to say, picking up comment number 1, each council
member that voted in favor provide an explanation of the reason for
supporting and their understanding.  I would expect we could convey that
information to the task force.  That's not the same as changing the
definition much it's just providing input in addition to whatever other input
they might have provided. 

Any other clarifying questions from you, Avri?

>>AVRI DORIA:  No.

>>BRUCE TONKIN:  Marilyn.

>>MARILYN CADE:  Bruce, I'll go to the end of the queue.

>>BRUCE TONKIN:  Mawaki.

>>MAWAKI CHANGO: I will have plenty of clarification question, or whatever. 
I'm a little bit lost, and I'm not sure if this is the place to vote on this. 

Marilyn was asking to accept clarification questions and kind of put them on
hold and vote on this.  I don't understand how we can vote on this without
understanding the motion. 

The motion is very complex, and I'm still wrestling with it.  And while, at
the same time, I have to listen to the debate to the discussion to make sure
that some of my concerns are addressed. 

So I'm a little bit swamped here, knowing that English is my third or fourth
language, working language. 

So I'm not sure if this is the place to vote on this.  But I'll just state
the principles that I will adhere to. 

It is we are not redefining the purpose of WHOIS or we are not redefining
this formulation or rephrasing the formulation. 

We can explain.  We can clarify.  We can take the technical wording to
explain it in plain English.  But not redefining, rewarding this purpose. 

>>BRUCE TONKIN: So Mawaki, can I just comment on two things.  One is, I think
it is important that I have a motion that allows me to present, in the public
forum, whenever that is, today or tomorrow, to provide it.  Because the
board, for example, has been getting extensive correspondence, as has -- as
we have had at this meeting.  So I think it's important that the council has
a statement, which is why I'd like -- I do recognize that it is hard to
absorb all this. 

Secondly, just to be absolutely clear to you, this motion does not change the
definition of purpose.  There is nowhere here where we're asking for a change
in the definition of purpose. 

So that definition that's currently agreed to is still on the table for the
WHOIS task force. 

What it does do, I think, is pick up some of the comments you made, it does
provide the opportunity for those that voted in favor to provide some clarity
as to why they voted in favor.  It does allow us to collect the information
together in a coherent form that Ken suggested that gives us a perspective on
what other people thought -- other people think that definition means. 

And it also allows us to start with a broader dialogue with the community --
in particular, government public policy community -- on the data itself and
why it's being collected and how it's used and so on. 

But that doesn't actually change again, this definition. 

>>MAWAKI CHANGO:  What about point 3 of this motion?  I don't understand.  Develop broadly understandable definition.  What is that?

>>BRUCE TONKIN: Okay.  The current definition, which is the definition that
we have already voted on, is related to the service that provides public
access to some role of the data.  In other words, to the WHOIS service.  And
it's not -- the current definition that we have is not a definition of the
data.  It's a definition of the service.  So that's just a statement of fact. 
I mean, I could word it better, but -- What don't you understand?

>>MAWAKI CHANGO:Isn't this a part of the terms of reference for the task force somewhere?

>>BRUCE TONKIN:  This -- the definition of the purpose of the data is not in the terms of reference of the task force.  And that's why that definit
ion that we created is solely related to the service.

>>MAWAKI CHANGO:  Now, is it -- is it -- I'm still feeling that we are taking on the job of the task force.

>>BRUCE TONKIN:  No, we're not.  No.  We're not changing -- that last motion is -- it's actually providing some clarity on the fact that that defin
ition isn't related to the data that's being collected, which is not in the terms of reference of the task force.

>>MAWAKI CHANGO:  Okay.  So the task force has developed a definition for the purpose of the data.  And now --

>>BRUCE TONKIN:  No.  The task force has developed a definition for the WHOIS service.

>>MAWAKI CHANGO:  Services.

>>BRUCE TONKIN:  Yeah.

>>MAWAKI CHANGO:  And now you are proposing that the council takes in charge the definition of the purpose of the data.

>>BRUCE TONKIN:  Yes.

>>MAWAKI CHANGO:  Why not give it to the task force?  I mean the terms of reference --

>>BRUCE TONKIN: Two things.  One is that the task force, that's probably
going to wind it back six months, I'd say, because they need to actually --
where they are now is that they are dealing with the WHOIS service.  Not --
nothing else.  That's the terms of reference of the task force.  That's not
to say that we might not decide -- we could, if we want, create a new task
force to look at that.  But it's the same sort of response that I was saying
to Avri.  They are different things. 

The task force is dealing with the WHOIS service.  It's when you go to WHOIS
dot blah, blah, blah, and the reasons why you have that service, which as
it's currently defined is to provide information sufficient to contact a
responsible party for a particular domain name.  That's the definition we
have. 

And we're not changing that. 

But what we are saying is that doesn't define the data that's collected.  It
defines the service for accessing information. 

It's essentially saying -- we are basically defining the purpose of the phone
book, to use another analogy here, as opposed to the purpose for collecting
data that might be related to providing a wire into a house, the different
things. 

>>MAWAKI CHANGO:  Okay.  I'll send further comments on the list if -- when they become available.

>>BRUCE TONKIN:  Okay.

>>MAWAKI CHANGO:  I need to go through and think a little bit about this.

>>BRUCE TONKIN: Okay.  Philip.  And I note we have 15 minutes left, just so
people are aware. 

>>PHILIP SHEPPARD: Thank you, Bruce.  I just had a simple drafting
suggestion.  It may be more logical, and indeed, fit in with the normal
drafting of such a thing to put your last paragraph first, the GNSO council
notes.  And if did you that, we'd probably need to change the wording of
"current definition" there to something like "the Formulation 1" or "the
purpose of WHOIS" or something like that, just to introduce it to the topic. 

Just a simple drafting suggestion. 

>>BRUCE TONKIN: I have just moved it up the front.  I'm not going to be able
to draft too much on the fly here.  So all I have done is moved that thing up
to the front that just says -- this is just re-ordering the text that is
already there. 

Marilyn, I think you are the last. 

>>MARILYN CADE: My question was related to four, I think.  It's the -- It's
the one where you said -- you referenced the RRA. 

Could I just ask a point of clarification?

>>BRUCE TONKIN:  That's point 3, yes.

>>MARILYN CADE: Point 3.  Thank you.  The point is that we would be having a
dialogue with the GAC and the SSAC on a definition of the purpose for which
the data.  And then you are using really a code word, instead of just listing
--

>>BRUCE TONKIN:  Yeah, I am, because --

>>MARILYN CADE:  Yes.

>>BRUCE TONKIN:  I am actually using very precise language there, because that clearly defines that.  Separately I will give you that data.

>>MARILYN CADE:  I reviewed it.  I just wanted to note that that section should probably be attached as an addendum or a reference to our motion --


>>BRUCE TONKIN: Sure.  Yes.  But in very simple terms, it's the data you see
being provided by WHOIS today. 

>>MARILYN CADE:  Just to clarify as I understand it, it has the name of the registrant and then it has contact details.

>>BRUCE TONKIN:  I will be very specific.  It has the name of the registrant, the postal address of the registrant.  It doesn't have phone number.

>>MARILYN CADE:  Right.

>>BRUCE TONKIN: So it's the name and postal address of the registrant.  It
has the name, postal address, phone number and e-mail of the admin contact. 
Same for the technical contact. 

I think that's basically it, yeah. 

And then there's other information in there that's about creation dates,
expiry dates and that sort of thing. 

>>MARILYN CADE:  Right.  That's what I recollected but I would like to propose that we attach it.

>>BRUCE TONKIN: I will do so.  I am using that quite specifically because it
allows me to attach that and there's no arguments about what's in it.  Lucy. 

>>LUCY NICHOLS:  Bruce, just to make you aware that some of the councillors that are connected by telephone have some concerns.

>>BRUCE TONKIN:  And they are?

>>LUCY NICHOLS:  And they are that there's a 15-minute delay between sending the message and receiving the message, and they have not had sufficien
t time to consider the motion.

>>BRUCE TONKIN: Yeah.  Well, what I'm going to do, Lucy, is I'm going to put
it to a vote and see how many votes we get because it at least allows me to
make a statement.  I'm happy to work on it further.  And I just accept that
those people would abstain from the vote if they don't understand it. 

I think that's fine. 

>>MARILYN CADE:  Can I just clarify, Bruce, that if we were to summarize this -- the purpose of this resolution, it is to enable the council -- it 
is to verify or validate that the work of the task force will continue, taking into account the inputs that had been received --

>>BRUCE TONKIN:  Yes.

>>MARILYN CADE: -- and separately and in parallel it would establish a
working interaction, perhaps an ad hoc working group between the GNSO
council, the SSAC, and the GAC to undertake the elements that are described
in this resolution.  So it basically just authorizes a work plan. 

Thank you. 

>>BRUCE TONKIN:  Yeah, Cary is just suggesting that it's probably better to make sure that everyone does have a chance to fully consider the motion
, given that it is fairly complex.

>>MARILYN CADE:  You could take a sense of the councillors.

>>BRUCE TONKIN: Yeah, how about I take a sense of the council.  If I see
there is reasonable support, I will present it as a draft under consideration
as opposed to a resolution of council.  Ken. 

>>KEN STUBBS:  That makes a lot of sense to me, and I think we go one step further.  If there's enough of a comfort level with it, then what you ca
n do is request it be put out for an e-mail vote.  Just get the council to vote by e-mail, and it would give us an opportunity to move forward that
 way.

>>BRUCE TONKIN: We could do it that way.  I think we will kind of deal with
what Marilyn suggests which is similar to what the registrars have done,
really.  They haven't had time to do a formal motion but they have listed
these are the registrars that sort of support it at the moment. 

If I can just have a show of hands, who would support this motion.  And in
particular, support me, at least, representing it as a draft and a
consideration. 

(hands raised).

>>BRUCE TONKIN: Okay.  I think that gives me enough support on it.  Tell you
what?

>>MARILYN CADE:  How many voted.  We couldn't see.

>>BRUCE TONKIN: Okay, down the line.  Raise your hand again.  Apparently, we
just -- just whatever you feel like you raising your hand for. 

[ Laughter ]

>>BRUCE TONKIN: Marilyn has asked me just to count because she is sitting
there and can't see down the length of the table.  So if I can just have a
show of hands on the straw poll before.  So I have one, two, three, four,
five, six, seven, eight, nine, ten, 11, and I'll vote as well, so 12.  12.  I
don't want to represent that as a formal motion of council.  That's just in
the minutes.  So the only other item of business I think we should cover in
this meeting, most of the other things we've given reports on in the public
forum and as kind of work in progress. 

Marilyn, I believe you had one final motion you wished to put for
consideration under any other business. 

>>MARILYN CADE: I did, and might I ask Ken -- I believe it's been e-mailed to
the group, and might I ask Ken to read it and I will give my affirmative
vote.  I am, unfortunately, being called away.  But Ken, if you would read
it, please.  Avri, could you read it?

>>KEN STUBBS: Try to get through this.  The following -- We propose that the
following motion read into the council's minutes, if you agree.  Hold on for
a second.  I apologize. 

Beloved member of the Internet and ICANN family, Liz Dengate Thrush was
killed last week in a tragic car accident that also took the lives of three
other members of her family.  Liz was a well-known leader and contributor to
the Internet.  And many of the ICANN community knew Liz personally through
her participation in ICANN's meetings and her leadership in Internet NZ in
New Zealand. 

Liz was the wife of Peter Dengate Thrush, a longstanding contributor and
leader in the global Internet community as well as the New Zealand Internet
community and an ICANN board member. 

The GNSO council on behalf of the GNSO sends our heartfelt condolences to
Peter Dengate Thrush, to Liz and Peter's children, Claire, Phoebe and Henry,
and to the families of Liz and Peter in their tragic loss.  And to Liz's many
loving friends for the tragic loss of Liz and other members of their family. 

I guess I'd like to make a motion that the text that I just read to you,
which can be provided to the Secretariat, be read into the minutes, accepted
formally by the council. 

>>BRUCE TONKIN: Okay.  Do I have a seconder for that? Avri.  Okay.  All those
in favor, please say aye and raise your hand. 

>> Aye.

>>BRUCE TONKIN: Any against? Any abstentions? Okay.  At that point, I will
formally close the meeting and thank you all for attending. 

(Applause.) 

© Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers