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 Links and information may be outdated or incorrect.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 Rome

GNSO Whois Task Force 2 Meeting

Wednesday, 3 March 2004

The following is the un-edited raw output of the real-time captioning taken during the meeting identified above. 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.

>>THOMAS KELLER: I WANT TO WELCOME ALL OF TO YOU THE -- TO REVIEW DATA COLLECTED AND DISPLAYED IN WHOIS AND HOW REGISTRANTS ARE GETTING NOTIFIED WHAT DATA IS DISPLAYED WHEREVER AND HOW IT'S BEING ACCESSED.
WE HAVE REPRESENTATIVE FROM THE GNSO CONSTITUENCIES, THE ALAC, AND AMADEU AMADEU ABRIL I ABRIL.

MAYBE WE JUST INTRODUCED OURSELVES.
MY NAME IS TOM KELLER.
I AM FROM THE REGISTRAR CONSTITUENCY, AND I AM CHAIRING THE MEETING TODAY.
I WAS ASKED TO STEP IN BECAUSE JORDYN BUCHANAN WHO NORMALLY CHAIRS OUR MEETINGS IS NOT AVAILABLE RIGHT NOW BECAUSE OF THE -- BECAUSE DATA PRO GOT SOLD.

>>MAGGIE MANSOURKIA: MAGGIE MANSOURKIA FROM MCI AND ISPCP CONSTITUENCY.

>>THOMAS ROESSLER: THOMAS ROESSLER WITH THE AT-LARGE ADVISORY COMMITTEE

>>AMADEU ABRIL I ABRIL: AMADEU ABRIL I ABRIL FROM AMADEU ABRIL I ABRIL CONSTITUENCY

(LAUGHTER.)

>>KATHRYN KLEIMAN: KATHRYN KLEIMAN.

>>DAVID MAHER: DAVID MAHER.

>>STEVE METALITZ: STEVE METALITZ, INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY CONSTITUENCY.

>>THOMAS KELLER: I WILL JUST KIND OF GUIDE YOU THROUGH WHAT OUR TASK FORCE IS DOING AND WHAT THE GAMES ARE AND WHAT THE GOALS ARE AND WHAT WE ARE TRYING TO GET OUT OF IT.

AND IT ALL BOILS DOWN PRETTY MUCH TO THREE CORE QUESTIONS WE HAVE.
AND THAT IS, THE FIRST ONE IS, WHAT IS THE BEST WAY TO INFORM THE REGISTRANTS ABOUT THE DATA WHICH IS MADE PUBLICLY AVAILABLE.

THE SECOND ONE IS WHAT CHANGE, IF ANY, SHOULD BE MADE TO THE DATA ELEMENTS THAT MUST BE COLLECTED FROM THE REGISTRANTS AT THE TIME OF REGISTRATION.

AND THE THIRD ONE IS, SHOULD REGISTRANTS BE ALLOWED TO REMOVE CERTAIN PARTS OF THE REQUIRED CONTACT INFORMATION FROM THE PUBLIC DISPLAY.

THAT IS MOST PROBABLY THE MOST CONTROVERSIAL THING WE HAVE ON OUR PLATE ON THAT TASK FORCE.

WE HAVE DEFINED DIFFERENT MILESTONES THAT WAS DONE BY THE WHOIS WORKING GROUP BEFORE US, SO WE ARE BOUND BY THAT DESCRIPTION OF WORK, AND JUST TO GUIDE YOU THROUGH THERE, IT'S TO EXAMINE THE CURRENT METHODS BY WHICH REGISTRARS AND RESELLERS INFORM REGISTRANTS OF THE PURPOSE OF CONTACT DATA COLLECTED. ANALYZE EXISTING USE OF REGISTRANT CONTACT DATA DISPLAYED IN WHOIS. DOCUMENT EXISTING METHODS BY WHICH REGISTRANTS MAY MAINTAIN ANONYMITY. DOCUMENT EXAMPLES OF EXISTING LOCAL PRIVACY LAW IN REGARD TO DISPLAY TRANSMITTAL OF DATA. AND THE LAST ONE IS AFTER WE DO ALL WORK, WE GO BACK AND LOOK AT WHETHER THE DECISIONS WERE GOOD ONES OR NOT.

WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO DO, IT'S A RATHER HARD TASK TO MAKE ANY KIND OF INFORMED DECISION IF YOU DON'T HAVE ENOUGH DATA, SO WHAT WE TRIED TO DO IS WE START DATA GATHERING. WE SENT SURVEYS TO ALL DIFFERENT KINDS OF PEOPLE. THEY ARE GNSO CCTLDS. WE DIDN'T ONLY SEND IT TO THE GNSO WHICH IS JUST BEING ESTABLISHED BUT WE SENT IT OUT TO (INAUDIBLE) AS WELL AND ALL OTHER GTLDS WHICH WERE WILLING TO PARTICIPATE. WE SENT ALSO TO THE GAC, AND WE SENT OUT A SPECIAL SURVEY TO THE REGISTRARS AS THEY ARE THE ENTITY WHICH HOLDS THE DATA AS COLLECTING THE DATA. SO SOME SPECIAL QUESTIONS FOR THEM.

WHAT WILL HAPPEN AFTERWARDS IN THE PROCESS WHICH IS -- YEAH, THAT'S THE PROCESS WHICH WE'RE JUST TAKING IS GETTING THE DATA AND TRYING TO ANALYZE IT.

WE BUILT THREE GROUPS FOR THAT, BUT THAT IS SOMETHING I WILL GET INTO LATER ON.
AND AT THE END, WE WILL GO FOR A POLICY RECOMMENDATION.
SO RIGHT NOW, WE'RE NOT DOING ANY POLICY AT ALL, BUT WE'RE JUST TRYING TO GET THE DATA AND ANALYZE THE DATA. KIND OF WORK THE DATA AND THEN MAKE AN INFORMED DECISION ON IT.

THE QUESTION IS I WILL JUST BRIEF GO OVER THEM BECAUSE IT'S MY INTENTION TO PUT THEM UP AND HAVE SOME KIND OF INPUT, IF YOU MAY, THE REGISTRAR CONSTITUENCY IS ASKED ABOUT THE CURRENT POLICY ADOPTED BY REGISTRARS AND THEIR RESELLERS WITH REGARDS TO NOTIFYING REGISTRANTS OF CONTACT DATA. METHODS OFFERED TO PROVIDE AN ANONYMOUS REGISTRATION AND A VERY IMPORTANT THING WHICH HAS NEVER BEEN LOOKED AFTER BEFORE IS WHETHER THEY MADE ANY KIND OF ACCOMMODATIONS TO COMPLY WITH PRIVACY LAWS IN THEIR OWN COUNTRIES.

THE GAC WAS ASKED ABOUT EXACTLY THESE LAWS, WHETHER THERE ARE PRIVACY LAWS FOR THEIR COUNTRY OR NOT, AND IF THEY APPLY TO WHOIS.

THE OTHER CONSTITUENCY WHERE ASKED ABOUT ARE THE GENERAL CONSTITUENCIES, ALL THE GTLDS WERE ASKED ABOUT THE USE OF DATA, WHETHER THEY HAVE CONCERNS ABOUT CERTAIN DATA FIELDS AND WHETHER THEY SUGGEST NEW DATA ELEMENTS. WE DIDN'T REALLY DEFINE WHAT NEW DATA ELEMENTS, BUT WE FOUND OUT THAT CERTAIN PEOPLE HAVE STRONG FEELINGS THAT CERTAIN DIFFERENT THINGS SHOULD BE IN THE WHOIS THAT MUST BE DEBATED IN SOME WAY.

THE LAST QUESTION FOR ALL THE CCTLD CONSTITUENCIES IS WHETHER THEY KNOW METHODS OF ANONYMOUS REGISTRATION OR NOT.

THE CCTLDS WERE ASKED PRETTY MUCH THE SAME QUESTIONS AS WE ASKED THE GAC. IT'S ALL ABOUT WHETHER THEY COLLECT AND DISPLAY AND WHETHER THEY HAVE ANY LOCAL RESTRICTIONS BY PRIVACY LAWS OR NOT.

THAT'S PRETTY MUCH IT.

WHAT I WOULD LIKE TO DO -- THE MAIN PROBLEM WE HAVE RIGHT NOW, WE DON'T HAVE A WHOLE LOT OF DATA TO MAKE A DECISION ON. SO WE CANNOT REALLY DO THE SAME THING WHAT WE JUST DONE ON TASK FORCE 1 TO DEBATE THINGS WE ALREADY CAME UP WITH, BUT WE'D LIKE TO SHOW YOU THE QUESTIONS WE ASKED CONSTITUENCIES IN THE VARIOUS GROUPS FOR INPUT. MAYBE YOU WILL BE ABLE TO ENLIGHTEN US ON CERTAIN ASPECTS OF WHAT YOU'RE THINKING.

THAT WOULD BE THE FIRST SET OF QUESTIONS. IT'S BEEN SENT TO THE REGISTRARS. MAYBE THERE IS SOMEONE WHO IS SOMETHING SOME IDEAS ABOUT THAT.
BRIAN, YOU WANT TO? NO? OKAY.

>>MARILYN CADE: SO LET ME UNDERSTAND, TOM, IF PEOPLE DON'T COME TO THE MICROPHONE AND VOLUNTEER, WE'RE GOING TO START CALLING ON THEM ONE BY ONE?

>>THOMAS KELLER: NO.

>>BRIAN CUTE: THANK YOU, BRIAN CUTE FROM NETWORK SOLUTIONS. I THINK THE SECOND QUESTION THAT WAS UP ON THE SCREEN A MOMENT AGO, IT WASN'T THAT SCREEN BUT IT HAD TO DO WITH AN EXAMINATION OF LEGAL SYSTEMS OR LAWS AND HOW THAT (INAUDIBLE) AND DISPLAY OF THE DATA. AND IN THE CONSTITUENCY MEETING YESTERDAY, GEORGE PAPAPAVLOU FROM THE EU MADE A VERY INSTRUCTIVE PRESENTATION ABOUT THE -- AN OVERVIEW OF THE EU PRIVACY DIRECTIVE AND IT'S POTENTIAL IMPACT ON THE (INAUDIBLE) PRACTICES OF TODAY.

I THINK A BALANCED INTERPRETATION WOULD BE THAT IT CALLED INTO QUESTION SOME OF THE WHOIS PRACTICES TODAY. AND I THINK THERE'S TWO IMPORTANT QUESTIONS YOU NEED TO ADDRESS GOING FORWARD.

NUMBER ONE, I THINK IT'S CONSTRUCTIVE TO LOOK AT THE DIFFERENT LEGAL SYSTEMS AND TRY TO UNDERSTAND THE IMPACT OF THE LAWS AS THEY APPLY TO WHOIS. BUT ALSO UNDERSTANDING THAT REGISTRARS PROVIDE SERVICE IN MANY DIFFERENT COUNTRIES AND IMPORTANTLY, HAVE CUSTOMER BASES FROM ALL AROUND THE WORLD. OUR CUSTOMER BASE PROFILE HAS REGISTRANTS FROM EVERY SINGLE REGION OF THE WORLD AND THAT CREATES SOMETHING OF AN INHERENT DIFFICULTY FOR TWO REASONS.

IF THERE IS A MULTIPLICITY OF LEGAL REGIMES THAT IMPACT OUR PRACTICES, HOW ARE WE, AS REGISTRARS, TO ADDRESS THAT IN RELATION TO A COMPLETED POLICY DEVELOPMENT PROCESS THAT MAY CHANGE THOSE RULES.

SECONDLY, AS A MATTER OF COMPETITION AMONG REGISTRARS, SINCE REGISTRARS RESIDE IN DIFFERENT COUNTRIES AROUND THE WORLD, AS LOCAL CORPORATE ENTITIES, THEY ARE SUBJECT TO THEIR LOCAL LAWS, AND I BELIEVE THERE'S AN INHERENT TENSION. IF A REGISTRAR PRACTICES OR RESIDES IN A COUNTRY THAT HAS A HIGHER LEVEL OF PRIVACY PROTECTION AND, AND RATIONALLY COMPLIES WITH THE LAW AS IT SHOULD, A REGISTRAR THAT COMPETES IN THE SAME SPACE IN A COUNTRY WHERE THE PRIVACY LAWS ARE NOT AS RESTRICTIVE IN SOME WAYS MAY BE AT A COMPETITIVE DISADVANTAGE. CERTAINLY THE QUESTION OF WHETHER THERE'S A COMPETITIVE DISADVANTAGE OR STRESS AMONG REGISTRARS ON THAT FRONT SHOULD BE ADDRESSED AS A QUESTION AS WELL.

>>MARILYN CADE: THANK YOU. I DO HAVE A QUESTION.

>>THOMAS KELLER: MARILYN, KATHERINE, AMADEU AND STEVE.

>>MARILYN CADE: THANK YOU, BRIAN. VERY INTERESTING POINTS. IN DOING BUSINESS IN OTHER COUNTRIES, WHICH MY COMPANY DOES, WHEN WE ENTER A COUNTRY, WE ASSESS THE PRIVACY LAWS AND DETERMINE THROUGH -- WHETHER OR NOT THE LAW APPLIES TO US, AND THEN CONSULT WITH THE APPROPRIATE LEGAL RESOURCE WITHIN THAT COUNTRY IF IT'S A DATA PRIVACY COMMISSIONER OR SOME OTHER COUNTRIES HAVE OTHER PEOPLE WHO WOULD BE RESPONSIBLE. IN THE UNITED STATES, FOR INSTANCE, THERE ARE A MYRIAD OF LAWS WHICH HAVE PRIVACY IMPLICATIONS, AND SO WE WOULD NEED TO CONSULT WITH A NUMBER OF DIFFERENT PEOPLE.

AND I'M NOT QUITE SURE WHETHER YOU WERE SAYING THAT REGISTRARS SHOULD BE AWARE OF AND TAKE INTO ACCOUNT THE PRIVACY LAWS OF THE COUNTRIES THEY DO BUSINESS IN OR THAT THEY ARE NOT AWARE OF THOSE PRIVACY LAWS.

>>BRIAN CUTE: NO, THEY SHOULD, OBVIOUSLY. WHEREVER YOU ARE, YOU SHOULD BE AWARE OF THE LOCAL LAW AND COMPLY WITH THE LOCAL LAW. AND BECAUSE WE OPERATE DIFFERENT JURISDICTIONS, AS COMPETITORS, BECAUSE OUR CUSTOMER BASES HAVE REGISTRANTS FROM ALL AROUND THE WORLD, THERE IS AN INHERENT TENSION AND A QUESTION THAT REALLY NEEDS TO BE ADDRESSED OF HOW A REGISTRAR CAN EFFECTIVELY COMPLY WITH ITS ICANN CONTRACT AND OBLIGATIONS AS THEY MAY BE MODIFIED AT THE END OF THIS PROCESS, AND ALSO WITH THOSE VARIOUS LOCAL LAWS.

>>KATHRYN KLEIMAN: WHAT YOU'RE OFFERING IS A VERY IMPORTANT PERSPECTIVE AND IN SOME WAYS THE REGISTRARS HAVE A VERY IMPORTANT AND UNIQUE VOICE HERE BECAUSE OF THE IMPACT THAT THE POLICY WILL HAVE DIRECTLY ON REGISTRARS.

I JUST WANTED TO POINT OUT GENERALLY THE CONSTITUENCY STATEMENTS WILL BE DUE SHORTLY, AND I THINK THAT THE PERSPECTIVE YOU OFFER, TO THE EXTENT IT CAN BE IN WRITING AS PART OF THE CONSTITUENCY STATEMENT, WOULD HAVE A BIG IMPACT ON WHAT WE'RE EVALUATING.

>>BRIAN CUTE: SURE.

>>THOMAS KELLER: AMADEU.

>>AMADEU ABRIL I ABRIL: YEAH, WELL, BRIAN, SURE, THERE ARE ALSO DIFFERENT TAX SYSTEMS AND (INAUDIBLE) LAWS THAT MAY HAVE SOME IMPACT ON THINGS ICANN IMPOSES ON REGISTRARS TO BE IMPOSED ON REGISTRANTS. BUT LEGAL DIVERSITY IS A FACT, AND THE ONLY THING YOU CAN DEFINE IS WHERE THE POLICE CAN TAKE YOU AND SECOND TRY TO COMPLY WITH THE LAWS WHERE YOU HAVE ANY BUSINESS RUNNING, IF YOU CAN AND IF YOU KNOW.

BUT BEING A LAWYER, I WOULD NOT ADVISE THAT WE TRY TO DO A WHOIS POLICY LIKE THE (INAUDIBLE) OR WHOIS POLICY WORLDWIDE BECAUSE IT WILL PROBABLY TAKE 18 GENERATIONS FOR US ALL TO DO SO BECAUSE THEY ARE EVOLVING.

I WOULD LIKE TO GO BACK TO OUR REAL ROLE IS TRYING TO POLICE INTERNET RESOURCE IN A WAY THAT'S USEFUL FOR THE USERS THAT REASONABLE PEOPLE EXPECT FROM THAT.

AND THEREFORE, I WOULD LIKE THAT WE STOP TALKING ABOUT THE WHOIS AS A WHOLE THING, AND WE START DISCUSSING ABOUT THE DIFFERENT SETS OF DATA THAT ARE NEEDED TO BE COLLECTED, TO BE COMMUNICATED TO OTHER PARTIES AND TO BE MADE PUBLICLY AVAILABLE FOR DIFFERENT PURPOSES.

>>BRIAN CUTE: AND I AGREE WITH YOU, THAT'S A DISCRETE TASK THAT WE HAVE TO ADDRESS. BUT STEPPING BACK TO YOUR FIRST POINT, I THINK IT IS COMMONPLACE AND HAS BEEN FOR SOME TIME, MARILYN WORKS FOR A MULTI-NATIONAL CORPORATION, TO GRAPPLE WITH THIS QUESTION OF MULTIPLE JURISDICTIONS AND THEIR LAWS AND HOW DO YOU DEAL WITH THEM. I'M NOT SUGGESTING THAT POLICY DEVELOPMENT PROCESS SHOULD COME UP WITH A SILVER BULLET TIME QUESTION. AND IN TRYING TO ADDRESS THAT IN LAST FEW YEARS, MANY COMPANIES LOOKING AT THE LANDSCAPE COME UP WITH THE EASIER RESOLUTION OF WHERE IS THE BAR SET THE HIGHEST, AND IF I HIT THAT BAR I KNOW I'M IN COMPLIANCE IN EVERY OTHER JURISDICTION. THAT'S NOT A SUGGESTION; THAT'S JUST A STATEMENT OF PRACTICE.

AND ALSO, IN THE LINE OF A STATEMENT OF PRACTICE, WITH REGARD TO MY QUESTION ON COMPETITION AMONG AND BETWEEN REGISTRARS, THAT WAS A FORWARD-LOOKING STATEMENT, BUT ALSO I BELIEVE TODAY, IN PRACTICE, YOU WILL FIND DIVERGENT PRACTICES AMONG REGISTRARS FOR THE VERY REASON THAT THERE ARE DIFFERENT LOCAL LAWS THAT HAVE DIFFERENT REQUIREMENTS.

SO THAT IS AN UNDERLYING STRESS. I'M NOT SUGGESTING THAT THIS PROCESS WOULD FIND A PERFECT SOLUTION. AND AT THE END OF THE DAY, THE ICANN CONTRACT HAS TO BE UNIFORM IN SOME WAY FOR REGISTRARS, ACCREDITED REGISTRARS, AND REGISTRARS HAVE THEIR OWN SERVICE AGREEMENT WITH THEIR CUSTOMER THROUGH WHICH THEY CAN, IN ANOTHER WAY, ADDRESS SOME OF THESE ISSUES.

BUT I THINK IT'S A VERY IMPORTANT QUESTION THAT NEEDS TO BE LOOKED AT.

>>THOMAS KELLER: STEVE.

>>STEVE METALITZ: YES.

BRIAN, I THINK I WOULD AGREE WITH THOSE WHO HAVE SAID THAT YOU HAVE RAISED SOME IMPORTANT ISSUES HERE.

BUT I AM HE A LITTLE CONCERNED BECAUSE YOU HAVE RAISED THEM IN A VERY ABSTRACT FASHION AND IN VERY GENERAL TERMS.

AND OUR QUESTIONNAIRES ARE ASKING FOR SOME SPECIFICS ABOUT HOW REGISTRARS, IF AT ALL, HAVE CHANGED THEIR PRACTICES IN ORDER TO COMPLY WITH LOCAL LAWS IN WAYS THAT MAY PRESENT PROBLEMS FOR THE ICANN POLICIES.
NOW, YOUR COMPANY SIGNED THIS AGREEMENT FOUR YEARS AGO, AND YOU'VE BEEN OPERATING UNDER IT.
AND YOU'VE BEEN OPERATING, AS YOU POINT OUT, IN MANY COUNTRIES.
AND MANY COUNTRIES HAVE LAWS THAT MAY TOUCH ON THIS QUESTION.
AND THERE ARE OBVIOUSLY VERY COMPLEX ISSUES ABOUT EVEN WHAT LAW APPLIES AND WHICH COUNTRY'S LAW APPLIES, AND WITHIN THAT COUNTRY, WHICH PARTICULAR LAW APPLIES TO THIS AREA, IF ANY.

I WOULD THINK THAT WITHIN THAT PERIOD OF TIME, YOU WOULD HAVE GATHERED SOME EXAMPLES, IF THIS TENSION IS NOT MERELY THEORETICAL, BUT REAL, YOU WOULD HAVE SOME EXAMPLES.
AND SO I HOPE THAT -- AND I'M NOT SINGLING OUT YOUR COMPANY.

I WOULD HOPE THAT ALL THE REGISTRARS, ONLY TWO OF WHICH I THINK HAVE RESPONDED TO THIS QUESTIONNAIRE, BUT I WOULD THINK ALL OF THEM WOULD BE ABLE TO PROVIDE US SOME DATA.
BECAUSE AS OUR ACTING CHAIRMAN SAID RIGHT AT THE OUTSET, IF WE DON'T HAVE DATA, IT GETS VERY HARD TO MAKE A GOOD DECISION.
SO I WOULD ENCOURAGE YOU TO COME FORWARD, AND THE OTHER REGISTRARS, TO COME FORWARD WITH SOME SPECIFIC EXAMPLES, AND THAT WE CAN TAKE A LOOK AT AND TRY AND FIGURE OUT HOW THIS SHOULD IMPACT THE ICANN POLICIES.

>>BRIAN CUTE: I AGREE WITH YOU.
AND I'M HAPPY TO PROVIDE THAT DATA, IN RESPONSE.

>>THOMAS KELLER: THANK YOU.
>>AMADEU ABRIL I ABRIL: STEVE, I WILL GIVE YOU A CONCRETE EXAMPLE NOT ON THE COLLECTION OF DATA, BUT ON THE (INAUDIBLE) MECHANISM WE HAVE FOR MAKING THE DATA AVAILABLE, WHOIS DATA AVAILABLE, I MEAN.

THE BULK WHOIS PROVISION, AS IT STANDS, IS NEARLY IMPOSSIBLE TO COMPLY FOR EU-BASED REGISTRARS.
AND MOST, I KNOW, DON'T COMPLY WITH IT.
THEY EITHER SAY NO OR DRAG THEIR FEET WHEN THEY ASK FOR BULK WHOIS LICENSE, ASKING FOR VERY STUPID (INAUDIBLE) THAT THE OTHER PARTY WILL NOT AGREE.
AND THAT'S ALL.
BUT THEY CANNOT COMPLY WITH THAT.

>>STEVE METALITZ: I WOULD BE INTERESTED IN PURSUING THAT QUESTION ON THE TASK FORCE, BECAUSE, AS YOU KNOW, ONE OF THE OTHER QUESTIONS THAT WE ASK IS WHETHER -- OR, RATHER, HOW REGISTRARS ARE FULFILLING THEIR OBLIGATION TO OBTAIN THE CONSENT OF REGISTRANTS TO THE USES THAT ARE MADE OF WHOIS DATA, WHICH INCLUDES, AS A USE THAT'S AN OBLIGATORY USE UNDER THE AGREEMENT, BULK ACCESS FOR NONMARKETING PURPOSES.

SO I THINK -- YOU KNOW, WE CAN PURSUE THAT WITHIN THE TASK FORCE, BECAUSE I THINK YOU'VE RAISED A GOOD SPECIFIC EXAMPLE.
BUT IT MAY BE THAT THERE ARE WAYS THAT THIS CONFLICT CAN BE RESOLVED.

>>THOMAS KELLER: MAYBE WE -- IT WOULD BE A GOOD IDEA TO MOVE ON TO OTHER QUESTIONS, IF THERE IS NO MORE INPUT THAN WE SENT TO THE REGISTRARS RIGHT NOW.
THAT WE MIGHT MOVE ON TO CCTLDS.

MARILYN, DO YOU HAVE --

>>MARILYN CADE: I JUST WANT TO ASK A QUESTION ABOUT QUESTION 1.
IS THERE ANYONE ELSE WHO WOULD RESPOND TO QUESTION 1 VERBALLY?

>>KATHRYN KLEIMAN: THE WHOLE QUESTIONNAIRE?
ARE YOU LOOKING FOR OTHER REGISTRARS TO RESPOND TO THE REGISTRAR QUESTIONNAIRE?

>>MARILYN CADE: LOOKING AT QUESTION 1 ON THE SCREEN.
WHICH IS A QUESTION FOR THE REGISTRARS.

>>MARC SCHNEIDERS: MEANING ONLY REGISTRARS CAN SPEAK NOW?

>>THOMAS KELLER: NO, NO.
EVERYBODY CAN --

>>MARILYN CADE: I'M PROBABLY HAPPY TO HAVE YOU SPEAK.
BUT THAT PARTICULAR QUESTION WAS ADDRESSED TO QUESTIONNAIRES.
BUT WE'RE --

>>THOMAS KELLER: YEAH, BUT IT DOESN'T MATTER, ACTUALLY.
IF YOU HAVE A STRONG FEELING ABOUT THAT, YOU'RE FREE TO STEP UP.
SURE.

>>MARC SCHNEIDERS: I HAVE SOMETHING TO SAY ABOUT 1.C, WHICH (INAUDIBLE) THE FIRST THING IS THIS, WHEN I CAME TO ROME, I HAD TO FIND A PLACE TO STAY.
AND I DECIDED TO DO THAT OVER THE WEB.
I FOUND A SITE CALLED ROME-TOURISM.COM, AND I WONDERED WHERE THIS WEB SITE OR THE OWNER OF THE DOMAIN WAS LOCATED.
SO I USED WHOIS TO FIND THAT OUT. AND IT TURNED OUT THESE PEOPLE WERE IN BARCELONA.
SINCE I TRUST ALL PEOPLE FROM CATALONIA, I DECIDED TO BOOK THE APARTMENT THROUGH THIS WEB SITE.
SO I'M SURE THAT --

>>AMADEU ABRIL I ABRIL: AND YOU ARE SLEEPING ON THE STREET RIGHT NOW; CORRECT?

>>MARC SCHNEIDERS: NO, IT'S GREAT.

ACTUALLY, IT'S REALLY GREAT.

WHAT I MEAN TO SAY WITH THIS IS THAT THE OWNER OF THIS DOMAIN WILL PROBABLY WANT ALL THEIR WHOIS DATA ON DISPLAY FOR EVERYBODY, BECAUSE IT MAY BUILD TRUST IN THEIR COMPANY.
THEY MAY EVEN WANT MORE DATA IN IT.
I HAVE NOTICED THAT THE ITALIAN WHOIS DISPLAYS SOME INFORMATION ABOUT COMPANIES IF THEY LIKE.

PERSONALLY, I HAVE A DOMAIN CALLED SCHNEIDERS.ORG.
AND I ACTUALLY WOULD LIKE NONE OF MY DATA TO BE DISPLAYED, BECAUSE I DON'T WANT SPAM, BECAUSE I DON'T WANT PEOPLE TO FIND MY PHONE NUMBER OVER WHOIS.
I DON'T MIND THEM FINDING IT OVER THE PHONE BOOK, BUT NOT THROUGH WHOIS.

SO I WOULD SUGGEST TO THIS TASK FORCE TO CONSIDER SERIOUSLY TO GIVE PEOPLE THE RIGHT TO THEIR OWN DATA, MEANING THAT IF I DON'T WANT MY PHONE NUMBER IN THE WHOIS, THAT I CAN MAKE THAT CHOICE.
I DO NOT WANT TO ABOLISH WHOIS, WHICH BRINGS ME TO MY SECOND POINT.

THOMAS ROESSLER SAID EARLIER THIS MORNING THAT HE DOUBTED THAT PEOPLE WERE DEPENDING ON WHOIS TO MANAGE THEIR DOMAINS.
I AM ACTUALLY ONE OF THOSE STUPID PEOPLE WHO USE WHOIS TO MANAGE THEIR DOMAINS.
BECAUSE I DON'T HAVE, ACTUALLY, ANY OTHER MEANS TO DO THAT.

UNLESS YOU HAVE, SAY, ONE OR TWO DOMAINS AND WRITE IT INTO YOUR SCHEDULE WHEN THEY EXPIRE AND WHEN YOU HAVE TO RENEW THEM, YOU WILL VERY LIKELY NOT FIND THIS OUT.
YOU GET REMINDER E-MAILS, BUT THEY END UP EASILY IN SPAM FILTERS.

WHAT I THINK IS EVEN MORE IMPORTANT, THAT WHOIS IS IN A WAY THE ONLY PROOF THAT YOU ARE THE REGISTRANT OF YOUR DOMAIN.
YOU DON'T GET A PIECE OF PAPER.
I HAVE NEVER RECEIVED ONE FOR ANY GTLD.

SO, AGAIN, I DON'T WANT TO GET RID OF WHOIS, BUT I WANT TO GIVE REGISTRANTS THE FREEDOM WHAT TO DISPLAY SO THAT THEY CAN DECIDE THEMSELVES WHETHER THEY FIND IT IMPORTANT THAT PEOPLE KNOW WHO THEY ARE, WHO IS BEHIND THE WEB SITE, WHO IS BEHIND AN E-MAIL ADDRESS, OR NOT.

THANK YOU.

>>AMADEU ABRIL I ABRIL: I HAVE A QUESTION FOR MARC.

MARC, LAST THING WAS THE TEST FOR INDIVIDUAL USER IN THIS CASE, OKAY.
WHEN YOU SAY YOU DON'T WANT YOUR DATA, YOU MEAN YOUR PERSONAL DATA IN THE WAY WE EUROPEANS CALL THAT; CORRECT?

YOU DON'T MIND THE NAME SERVER WITH IP ADDRESS BEING PUBLISHED IN THIS IS DATA OF YOUR DOMAIN AS WELL.
I GUESS THAT YOU ACCEPT SOME (INAUDIBLE) FOR TECHNICAL AND UNRESTRICTED CONTEXT.
THAT CAN BE YOU, YOUR (INAUDIBLE) NAME, SERVICE PROVIDER, WHATEVER.

YOU MEAN YOUR NAME AND YOUR PERSONAL DATA MEANING ADDRESS, LOCATION, THE TELEPHONE NUMBER, E-MAIL; CORRECT?
NOT THE REST OF THE INFORMATION OF THE CURRENT WHOIS; IS THAT CORRECT?

>>MARC SCHNEIDERS: NEARLY.
I THINK THAT PEOPLE SHOULD ALSO BE ABLE TO OPT OUT COMPLETELY.
FOR FIGHTING SPAM, FOR TRACKING CRACKERS, YOU DON'T NEED DOMAIN NAMES; YOU NEED IP NUMBERS.
SO FOR, SAY, TO POLICE THE NETWORK, TO AVOID PROBLEMS, YOU DON'T EVEN NEED A TECHNICAL CONTACT.

I WOULD PERSONALLY PUT A TECHNICAL CONTACT FOR MY DOMAIN NAMES, BECAUSE I FIND THAT SENSIBLE.
BUT I DON'T THINK IT'S NECESSARY.
I THINK NAME SERVERS ARE A GREAT THING.
BUT THOSE ARE, OF COURSE, ALREADY PUBLISHED THROUGH THE DNS.

>>AMADEU ABRIL I ABRIL: SORRY.
AND THE NEXT QUESTION WILL BE REGARDING YOUR DOMAIN NAME.
LET'S NOW I AM -- LET'S IMAGINE NOW I AM THE OWNER OF A TRADEMARK WHICH NAME IS SCHNEIDERS IN NEW ZEALAND, AND WHILE I SEE THAT YOU HAVE THE DOMAIN, AS IT HAPPENS VERY OFTEN, YOU ONLY USE E-MAIL, YOU DON'T HAVE ANY WEB SITE WITH ANY MEANINGFUL CONTENT.

SO I DON'T KNOW EXACTLY WHAT IS GOING ON THERE AND I DON'T KNOW WHO YOU ARE.
AND I DON'T EVEN KNOW WHERE YOU ARE, SO I CANNOT CHECK WHETHER THERE IS A THREAD SOMEWHERE THAT IS REGISTERED TO YOU OR NOT.

DON'T YOU THINK THE JURISDICTION WHERE YOU ARE BASED, SOMETHING LIKE NETHERLANDS, COULD HELP IN SOME CASES TO START INVESTIGATING SOME ISSUES AND NOT FORCE PEOPLE TO JUST SHOOT BOMBS IN THE BLIND?

>>MARC SCHNEIDERS: SO THEN IT MIGHT BE CLEVER FOR ME TO ACTUALLY ENTER SOME INFORMATION IN THERE TO AVOID GETTING A LETTER FROM A LAWYER FROM CATALONIA.
BUT -- OR NEW ZEALAND, IN YOUR EXAMPLE.
BUT STILL, I DON'T SEE WHY WE SHOULD HAVE SPECIAL PROVISIONS IN THE DATA ELEMENTS THAT YOU MAKE OBLIGATORY IN WHOIS FOR -- MERELY FOR INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY SURVEILLANCE.

I'D SAY THAT IF I BREAK THE LAW WITH MY DOMAIN, SCHNEIDERS.ORG, THAT, YEAH, IT'S BAD LUCK IF YOU'RE IN NEW ZEALAND, BUT YOU WILL HAVE TO GET A COURT ORDER FOR THE REGISTRAR TO DISCLOSE THIS INFORMATION, THEN.
I'D SAY IT'S MY DATA; IT'S MY CHOICE.
JUST LIKE IT'S MY DATA THAT ENDS UP IN THE PHONE BOOK OR NOT.

>>THOMAS KELLER: THANK YOU, MARC.
MAGGIE.

>>MAGGIE MANSOURKIA: I THINK YOU MAY HAVE SLIGHTLY ADDRESSED THIS -- MY QUESTION IN YOUR PREVIOUS ANSWER, BUT I WILL ASK IT AGAIN, BECAUSE I THINK IT WILL BE HELPFUL TO GET A LITTLE BIT MORE CLARIFICATION.

HOW WOULD YOU DIFFERENTIATE -- YOU MADE THE STATEMENT THAT YOU THINK IT'S PROPER FOR ANYONE WHO WANTS TO COMPLETELY OPT OUT OF PROVIDING ANY INFORMATION.

HOW WOULD YOU THEN DIFFERENTIATE, OR WOULD YOU, BETWEEN SOMEONE SUCH AS YOURSELF, WHO SIMPLY WANTS TO OPT OUT FOR PRIVACY REASONS, AND SOMEONE WHO HAS MORE NEFARIOUS PURPOSES, AND PUTTING ASIDE MAYBE THE TRADEMARK OR COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT FOR A MOMENT, IF THERE'S A NEED FOR LAW ENFORCEMENT TO GO AFTER THAT PERSON OR THAT DOMAIN HOLDER, HOW WOULD YOU, THEN, DIFFERENTIATE BETWEEN THE GOALS AND THE INCENTIVES THAT PEOPLE HAVE FOR OPTING OUT?

>>MARC SCHNEIDERS: YEAH, IF I PUT UP A BILLBOARD IN MY GARDEN ABUSING A TRADEMARK, YOU WILL ALSO HAVE TO FIND OUT WHO LIVES THERE, AND YOU MIGHT ONLY BE ABLE TO GET THE INFORMATION -- IF IT'S AN EMPTY HOUSE, THEN YOU HAVE TO FIND OUT WHO THE OWNER IS.

YOU MIGHT ONLY GET THAT INFORMATION THROUGH A COURT ORDER.
SO IN THIS CASE, YEAH, IT'S SAD, BUT YOU WOULD HAVE TO GET A COURT ORDER.
AND, OF COURSE, THERE IS A PROCESS IN PLACE TO DEAL WITH TRADEMARK INFRINGEMENTS AT UDRP.
AND MANY CASES IN THE UDRP ARE ACTUALLY AGAINST DOMAIN NAME REGISTRANTS WHO JUST PUT IN FALSE DATA, WHICH IS, OF COURSE, THE SAME AS NO DATA.
AND, YEAH, THE UDRP WORKS FOR THAT.
SO I DON'T SEE WHY IT WOULD NOT WORK FOR NO DATA.

>>MAGGIE MANSOURKIA: AND THE REAL-TIME -- THE REAL-TIME NEEDS OF LAW ENFORCEMENT DON'T CONCERN YOU AT ALL?

>>MARC SCHNEIDERS: UM --

>>MAGGIE MANSOURKIA: THE AMOUNT OF TIME, IN OTHER WORDS, THAT IT WOULD TAKE TO GO ABOUT THE PROCESS THAT YOU SUGGEST?

>>MARC SCHNEIDERS: IT'S, OF COURSE, DIFFICULT TO ANSWER THAT, BECAUSE IN DIFFERENT COUNTRIES, THERE ARE DIFFERENT LAWS TO WHAT THE POLICE CAN SORT OF SEE WITHOUT A COURT ORDER.

PERSONALLY, I WOULD NOT MIND IF -- BUT THIS IS MY PERSONAL OPINION AND NOT NECESSARILY THAT OF MY CONSTITUENCY.

PERSONALLY, I WOULD NOT MIND IF THE POLICE COULD GET MY DATA FROM THE REGISTRAR WITHOUT A COURT ORDER.
BUT I WOULD MIND IF ANY, SAY, ATTORNEY COULD GET IT.
BECAUSE THAT'S NOT THE LAW, TO ME.

>>THOMAS KELLER: YOU WANT TO GO FIRST, KATHY?
OKAY.
CAN YOU JUST HOLD ON A SECOND?
JUST HOLD OFF A SECOND.

>>KATHRYN KLEIMAN: I ACTUALLY HAD A QUESTION FOR MARC ALSO.
SORRY.
I WANTED TO GO BACK TO SOMETHING YOU SAID ABOUT LOOKING FOR BUSINESSES ONLINE.
AND IF YOU FIND THE DATA.
I WANTED TO SEE, ARE YOU SAYING, PERHAPS, THAT VOLUNTARY DISCLOSURE OF DATA BY THOSE WHO WANT TO BE FOUND, WHO WANT TO BE CONSIDERED WOULD ACTUALLY RAISE, PERHAPS, THE ACCURACY AND THE TRUSTWORTHINESS OF THE DATA?

IF YOU'RE LOOKING FOR SOMETHING AND YOU WANT TO BE FOUND AND YOU FIND IT IN THE WHOIS, THEN THAT COULD ACTUALLY BE USEFUL?
WOULD IT RAISE THE ACCURACY, LET ME ASK?

>>MARC SCHNEIDERS: YES, I AM NOT SURE, BECAUSE I COULD ALSO PRETEND TO BE IN BARCELONA BECAUSE I WANT TO SELL AN APARTMENT IN ROME.
SO I DON'T THINK SO.
IT WILL NOT IMPACT ACCURACY.
IT WILL, OF COURSE, TAKE OUT THE MICKEY MOUSE REGISTRATIONS OF, YEAH, PEOPLE WHO PUT IN MICKEY MOUSE OR DONALD DUCK TO AVOID DISCLOSING THEIR DATA.

BUT, IN GENERAL, YOU CAN STILL PUT IN ANYTHING IN WHOIS THE WAY IT FUNCTIONS NOW, BECAUSE NOBODY IS CHECKING WHETHER YOUR DATA ARE ACTUALLY CORRECT.

>>KIYOSHI TSURU: HI.
KIYOSHI TSURU FROM THE IPC.
BUT I'M GOING TO EXPRESS ONLY MY PERSONAL VIEWS.
I'M A PANELIST WITH (INAUDIBLE) IPO.

AND I CAN TELL YOU THAT MANY CYBERSQUATTING CASES ARE RESOLVED THROUGH AMICABLE DISPOSITION.
THAT MEANS THAT ONLY A FEW OF THE CASES OUT THERE ACTUALLY GO TO A UDRP PROCEEDING.
MANY OF THEM END UP WITH EITHER A PHONE CALL OR A LETTER, AND PARTIES SOMETIMES AGREE TO SETTLE.

IT IS THUS VERY IMPORTANT FOR PARTIES TO KNOW HOW TO CONTACT THE OTHER PARTY AND TRY TO NEGOTIATE BEFORE LITIGATING.

NOW, IF WE'RE NOT TALKING ABOUT THE SCOPE OF UDRP, WHICH, AS YOU KNOW, IS VERY NARROW AND VERY SPECIFIC, AND WHICH WAS ONLY TAILORED TO ATTACK THE MOST CLEARCUT CASES OF CYBERSQUATTING, AND IF YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT ISSUES LIKE CONSUMER PROTECTION THAT AFFECT INTERNET CITIZENS NO MATTER WHERE THEY ARE, THEN YOU NEED LAW ENFORCEMENT.

AND IN ORDER FOR LAW ENFORCEMENT TO TAKE PLACE, YOU NEED SOME MINIMUM DATA TO AT LEAST FIND OUT WHETHER THE OWNER OF THE DOMAIN NAME IS BONA FIDE OR A BAD-FAITH USER.
THAT'S WHY IT'S SO IMPORTANT AND THAT'S WHY THE INTERVENTION THAT PRECEDED ME SEEMS, TO ME, TO BE OVERSIMPLISTIC.
YOU DO NEED A MINIMUM REQUIREMENT OF DATA.
THANKS.

>>THOMAS KELLER: COULD YOU JUST ALLUDE TO THAT MINIMUM?
YOU PROBABLY DON'T -- IF YOU WANT TO FIND OUT WHO OWNS THE DOMAIN NAME, YOU DON'T NEED THE E-MAIL ADDRESS, YOU DON'T NEED THE FAX NUMBER, YOU DON'T NEED THE TELEPHONE NUMBER.
AND THAT IS PART OF WHAT WE ARE LOOKING FOR.

WHAT DATA IS BEING USED?
AND SO IF YOU COULD MAYBE GET INTO THAT A LITTLE BIT, GO INTO THAT.

>>KIYOSHI TSURU: PERHAPS STEVE HAS A MORE PROFOUND VIEW ON THAT.
IT'S JUST THE BASIC INFORMATION SO THAT YOU CAN GET -- YOU EITHER BEING ANOTHER PARTY TRYING TO GET AN AMICABLE SETTLEMENT OR TRYING TO FIND OUT MORE ABOUT THE OTHER PERSON.

>>THOMAS KELLER: BUT IT MIGHT BE NICE TO FIND OUT CERTAIN THINGS ABOUT CERTAIN PEOPLE AND IT DOES NOT NECESSARILY MEAN THEY HAVE TO DISPLAY IT TO THE PUBLIC.

SO I AM JUST TRYING TO FIND OUT -- OR WHERE MY QUESTION IS AIMING IS THAT DO YOU REALLY NEED THAT DATA FOR ANY KIND OF SPECIAL PURPOSE?

BECAUSE IF YOU SUE ON IT, BECAUSE THAT'S THE ONLY THING I'M SAYING ABOUT GERMANY, YOU JUST NEED THE POSTAL ADDRESS, NOT THE TELEPHONE NUMBER OF THE PERSON.

>>KIYOSHI TSURU: THE SCENARIO I AM TELLING YOU ABOUT IS, YOU DON'T HAVE TO GO AROUND SUING EVERYBODY.
YOU MIGHT AS WELL PICK UP THE PHONE AND SAY, "I HAVE THIS ISSUE ABOUT YOUR DOMAIN NAME.
CAN WE TALK ABOUT IT?"

I MEAN, MY FIRST COMMUNICATION WITH YOU DOES NOT HAVE TO BE A SERVICE OF A COURT ORDER.
IT MIGHT BE AN EASIER APPROACH IN SAYING, "TOM, I SAW YOUR WEB SITE.
YOU ARE CITING ME ON YOUR WEB SITE.
I DON'T WANT THIS PAPER CITED IN THAT MATTER BECAUSE I HAVE THIS OTHER PUBLISHED WORK."

>>THOMAS KELLER: OKAY.
SO JUST TO -- BECAUSE THERE'S A POSSIBILITY THAT CERTAIN PERSONS MIGHT DO CERTAIN THINGS, IT IS OKAY THAT ALL THE DATA IS NECESSARY TO DISPLAY TO THE PUBLIC, BECAUSE THERE ARE CERTAIN -- A CERTAIN SITUATION MIGHT ARISE WHERE YOU MAY WANT TO HAVE THAT?

>>KIYOSHI TSURU: WELL, I THINK THAT'S OVERSIMPLISTIC, TOO.
BECAUSE WHAT YOU ARE PROVIDING IS NOT ALL THE DATA; IT'S JUST A MINIMUM AMOUNT OF DATA SO THAT YOU AND I CAN GET IN TOUCH NORMALLY.
JUST A WAY I -- LIKE, IF I SAW THAT, I WOULD ASK SOMEBODY FROM MY STAFF TO GET THE YELLOW PAGES AND LOOK YOU UP.
AND I WOULD GIVE YOU A CALL.

>>THOMAS KELLER: IF I AM LISTED THERE.

>>KIYOSHI TSURU: IF YOU CHOSE TO -- BEING EUROPEAN, IF YOU CHOSE TO PLACE YOUR DATA IN THAT PUBLIC FORUM.
SO IF YOU WERE THERE, I WOULD FIND YOU.
BUT WHY OVERBURDEN THAT IF WE CAN HAVE THIS COMPLETE COMMUNICATION?
I MEAN, I AM NOT ASKING FOR YOUR DATE OF BIRTH, BECAUSE I WILL NOT SEND YOU A BIRTHDAY CARD.
I WILL JUST CONTACT YOU AND TELL YOU WHAT MY ISSUE IS.
HMM?

>>THOMAS KELLER: WE HAVE STEVE NEXT.
THEN WE GO TO MARC.
OR DO YOU HAVE --

>>MARC SCHNEIDERS: I HAVE A -- (INAUDIBLE).

>>THOMAS KELLER: OKAY.
SO WHO IS -- SO YOU GO FIRST.

>>STEVE METALITZ: WELL, YEAH, I JUST REALLY WANTED TO PICK UP ON ONE THING THAT KIYOSHI TSURU JUST SAID, WHICH IS THAT THE AVAILABILITY OF THIS INFORMATION CAN HELP RESOLVE DISPUTES WITHOUT RESORTING TO LITIGATION.

AND, OBVIOUSLY, LITIGATION IMPOSES A LOT OF COSTS ON SOCIETY AND ON DEFENDANTS OR POTENTIAL DEFENDANTS.
I THINK ICANN KNOWS THIS QUITE WELL.
SO HAVING THE ABILITY TO RESOLVE DISPUTES IN ADVANCE IS VERY USEFUL.
NOW, IT'S TRUE THAT IT'S NOT IN EVERY CASE THAT YOU NEED EVERY PIECE OF DATA IN ORDER TO DO THAT.

BUT, AGAIN, GIVEN, AS THE PREVIOUS SPEAKER SAID, THE RAMPANT INACCURACY OF WHOIS DATA AND THE FACT THAT, AS HE POINTED OUT, REGARDLESS OF THE ACCESS RULES, THERE'S LIKELY TO BE A LOT OF INACCURATE DATA THERE, AND YOU NEED TO HAVE THE BEST CHANCE THAT YOU CAN OF BEING ABLE TO CONTACT THE PERSON.

AND I GUESS I WOULD SUGGEST, ALTHOUGH WE DON'T HAVE VERY MUCH DATA YET IN RESPONSE TO OUR QUESTIONNAIRES, AND I WOULD ENCOURAGE EVERYBODY TO PROVIDE THEIR RESPONSES TO THESE QUESTIONS, WE DO HAVE SOME DATA, FOR EXAMPLE, SHOWING THAT THE REPRESENTATIVES OF SONG WRITERS AND MUSIC PUBLISHERS WHO ENCOUNTER WEB SITES WHERE MUSIC IS BEING PUBLICLY PERFORMED, COMMUNICATED TO THE PUBLIC WITHOUT A LICENSE, WANT TO BE ABLE TO CONTACT THAT PARTY VERY QUICKLY IN ORDER TO OBTAIN A LICENSE TO PREVENT ANY LAWSUIT FROM HAVING TO OCCUR.

AND THIS, OF COURSE, IS TRUE IN VIRTUALLY EVERY COUNTRY.
SO I THINK KIYOSHI'S RAISED AN IMPORTANT POINT ABOUT THE AVAILABILITY OF THIS DATA IN RESOLVING DISPUTES AS QUICKLY AND EFFICIENTLY AS POSSIBLE, OR AT LEAST ALLOWING THE PARTIES TO COMMUNICATE.

>>THOMAS ROESSLER: JUST A BRIEF DIRECT RESPONSE TO THAT.
THERE'S ALSO PEOPLE WHO ELECT NOT TO HAVE DISPUTES THAT ARE BROUGHT TO THEM RESOLVED OUT OF COURT.
THERE'S TWO PARTIES THAT NEED TO AGREE TO RESOLUTION.
AND IF ONE PARTY DOESN'T CALL YOU BACK WHEN YOU CALL THEM AND SAY, "WE'RE SUING YOU IF YOU DON'T SETTLE," THEN YOU ARE GOING TO SUE, SO WHY FORCE THEM TO MAKE CONTACT AVAILABLE.
THE LOGIC ESCAPES ME.
I'M SORRY.

>>THOMAS KELLER: OKAY.
ON WITH THE FLOOR FIRST.
MARC.

>>AMADEU ABRIL I ABRIL: I HAVE A QUESTION FOR KIYOSHI.
SO YOU CAN COME BACK TO THE MIKE, PLEASE.

>>KIYOSHI TSURU: YES, SIR.

>>AMADEU ABRIL I ABRIL: OKAY.
SO WE ARE TALKING HERE TO AN IP LAWYER, JUST HAD A DIFFERENT CASE THAN MARC SCHNEIDERS' AND SAY WHY YOU WANT THIS DATA HERE.

BUT LET'S IMAGINE YOU ARE POLICING THE WHOIS DATABASE TO SEE WHETHER SOMEBODY IS DOING SOMETHING WITH NAMES LIKE (INAUDIBLE) IN MEXICO OR ANY VARIATION OF THAT, INSTEAD OF (INAUDIBLE) OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT, YEAH?

FOR DOING THAT, PROBABLY YOU DON'T NEED THE WHOIS.
PROBABLY WITH A ZONE FILE, WHERE YOU HAVE THE NAMES, IT'S THAT -- YOU ARE NOT LOOKING WHAT AMADEU HAS -- WHETHER AMADEU IS A BAD GUY.
FIRST YOU ARE INTERESTED IN A STRING OF NAMES, AND THEN TO FIND OUT WHO IS THE ONE THAT IS CAUSING THE PROBLEM.
OKAY.

LET'S IMAGINE THAT I HAVE REGISTERED WITH (INAUDIBLE) AND I HATE THEM AND HATE LAWYERS IN MEXICO OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT.
AND THEN YOU WANT TO DO SOMETHING, FOR INSTANCE, GIVING ME A CALL AND SAYING, WELL, AMADEU, YOU SHOULDN'T, BECAUSE ONE DAY I CAN GET ANGRY, AND TRYING TO EXPLAIN WHY I SHOULDN'T.

DO YOU REALLY NEED FOR THIS SECOND PART -- YOU ARE NOT DOING THAT ON AN AUTOMATED BASIS.
YOU ARE NOT SENDING AUTOMATED CALLS TO EVERYONE.
YOU ARE DOING A HUMAN COMMUNICATION AND PERSONAL ACCESS.
THEN, WHY YOU NEED GENERAL PUBLICATION OF ALL THE DATA FOR INDIVIDUAL CALLS?
WHAT YOU NEED IS ACCESS, NOT PUBLICATION; CORRECT?
IF THERE IS A WAY, PUBLIC OR NOT, YOU CAN ACCESS THAT DATA, FOR INSTANCE, REQUEST THAT THROUGH THE REGISTRAR, IS NOT THAT ENOUGH?

>>KIYOSHI TSURU: LET ME TRY TO ANSWER YOU WITH ANOTHER REAL CASE, ONE CASE THAT YOU PRESENTED BEFORE ME.
BUT FOR THAT, I NEED YOU TO FIRST GIVE ME AUTHORIZATION TO DISCLOSE SOME FACTS.
OKAY.
SO YOU DEFENDED THE (INAUDIBLE) CATALONIA BEFORE OUR WIPO PANEL, COMPOSED OF THIS LITTLE GUY.

YOU WERE ABLE TO DO THAT IN ONLY 10 DAYS, AND THEN YOU WERE ABLE TO PROVE THAT WHOEVER HAD THAT DOMAIN NAME WAS A VERY KNOWN WORLDWIDE-KNOWN PIRATE BY THE NAME OF A. LOPEZ, I BELIEVE.
AND YOU WERE -- YOU MADE VERY STRONG ARGUMENTS ABOUT MR. A. LOPEZ AND HIS SUCCESSOR IN TITLE.

I ISSUED A PROCEDURAL ORDER REQUIRING THAT YOU GIVE ME ACTUAL EVIDENCE, NOT JUST YOUR WORD, THAT THIS MAN WAS A PIRATE.
SO I WANTED PHYSICAL EVIDENCE SHOWING ME THAT THE PERSON WHO HELD THE DOMAIN, WHICH IS THE NATION OF CATALONIA, IF YOU WILL, WITHIN SPAIN, WAS HOLDING IT IN BAD FAITH.
FORTUNATELY ENOUGH, WHOIS DATA WAS READILY AVAILABLE.
YOU DID ASK FOR AN EXTENSION.

BUT AFTER THE EXTENSION, YOU PROVIDED PRINTOUTS OF WHOIS DATA SHOWING THAT THE DOMAIN NAME HAD BEEN REGISTERED BY ONE A. LOPEZ, AND THAT THAT A. LOPEZ HAD TRANSFERRED IT TO ANOTHER ENTITY.
SO WHAT KIND OF INFORMATION DID YOU NEED? WELL, FIRST, OF COURSE, ASSUMING THAT YOU ARE A BONA FIDE PETITIONER, YOU SENT A LETTER TO MR. LOPEZ TO SETTLE DOWN AND TO SAY THIS DOMAIN NAME, CITING YOU LITERALLY, THE NAME HAS BEEN USED FOR 700 YEARS BY THIS STATE ENTITY.

SO I THINK THAT MY GOVERNMENT WANTS IT BETTER THAN YOU.
SO I THINK YOU SENT ONE SUCH LETTER, AND THAT'S WHY YOU NEED THIS CONTACT INFORMATION. YOU DON'T NEED MR. A. LOPEZ'S, OR WHOEVER HIS NAME IS, DATE OF BIRTH. YOU JUST NEED AN ADDRESS WHERE YOU CAN SEND HIM A LETTER OR GIVE HIM A CALL AND SAY, "MY GOVERNMENT THINKS HE HAS A BETTER RIGHT THAN YOU DO."

AND AFTER THAT HAS HAPPENED, IF OR HAD THAT CASE INVOLVED MORE SERIOUS INFRINGEMENTS LIKE CONSUMER FRAUD OR OTHER SORTS OF PIRACY OR OBSCENE MATERIALS, THEN YOU WOULD HAVE NEEDED THAT TO GO TO YOUR GOVERNMENT AND TELL THEM THAT SOMETHING WRONG WAS HAPPENING IN CONNECTION WITH THE GOVERNMENT OF CATALONIA.

SO IT'S NOT A HUGE BUNDLE OF INFORMATION. IT'S ONLY THE INFORMATION NECESSARY SO THAT YOU CAN CONTACT -- YOU MAY CONTACT THE OTHER PARTY, TELL THEM WHAT'S GOING ON, TRY TO REACH AN AMICABLE SETTLEMENT LIKE CIVILIZED PEOPLE, AND IF THAT DOESN'T WORK OUT, THEN CONTINUE WITH WHAT'S NEXT.

>>AMADEU ABRIL I ABRIL: A GOOD EXAMPLE, KIYOSHI, BUT STILL, THERE'S A DIFFERENCE BETWEEN ACCESS AND PUBLIC ACCESS. SORRY.

>>THOMAS KELLER: WAIT, WAIT.

>>KIYOSHI TSURU: OKAY, PROBABLY I WAS NOT PRECISE ENOUGH WITH THE TIMING.
HAD YOU -- I THINK YOUR CASE INVOLVES --

>>MILTON MUELLER: THIS HAS GONE ON QUITE A BIT. WHY DON'T YOU --

>>KIYOSHI TSURU: CAN I ASK MILTON FOR 30 MORE SECONDS. I WANT TO MAKE MY POINT WITH AMADEU. HAD YOU NEEDED TO GET THIS INFORMATION THROUGH A SPANISH COURT --

>>THOMAS KELLER: EXCUSE ME.

>>KIYOSHI TSURU: -- IT WOULD HAVE TAKEN YOU TWO OR THREE MORE MONTHS. WHAT HAPPENED IN THIS CASE --

>>THOMAS KELLER: EXCUSE ME. COULD WE -- I'M VERY SURE EVERYBODY GOT YOUR POINT, AND MAYBE YOU WOULD JUST GO --

>>KIYOSHI TSURU: I WAS JUST MAKING SURE --

>>THOMAS KELLER: I CAN TELL YOU WE GOT THE POINT AND THERE ARE OTHER PEOPLE IN LINE WHO WOULD LIKE TO SAY SOMETHING. MAYBE IT'S THE SAME THING, AND IF SOMEBODY HAS A QUESTION FOR YOU, YOU CAN COME UP AGAIN. BUT PLEASE, KEEP IT SHORT THIS TIME. A LITTLE BIT SHORTER. I MEAN NEXT TIME.
THANK YOU, THE NEXT ONE, PLEASE.

>>JEAN-MICHEL BECAR: SO, THANK YOU. I'M JEAN-MICHEL BECAR FROM GLOBAL MEDIA ONLINE, JAPAN. FIRST, THE QUESTION WAS DO YOU WANT THE DATA PUBLIC OR THE ACCESS. I THINK THE ANSWER IS THE ACCESS. YOU NEED THE ACCESS TO GET THE DATA.

SO AS A REGISTRAR, I WILL BE VERY HAPPY TO GIVE THE ACCESS TO THE LAWYERS, SO BY AUTHENTICATION OR WHATEVER. AND I WOULD LIKE TO LEAVE THE REGISTRANT THE CHOICE TO PUBLIC OR NOT THEIR DATA. SO THERE IS NO QUESTION, WE RESTRICT THE ADDRESS FOR THE IP LAWYERS. I AGREE TO GIVE THEM REALTIME WEB ACCESS, WHATEVER AUTHENTICATION WE CAN AGREE TOGETHER. BUT FOR THE PUBLIC, I REALLY THINK WE NEED TO LEAVE THE REGISTRANT TO CHOOSE IF THEY WANT TO SHOW THEIR INFORMATION OR NOT. THAT'S MY FIRST POINT, AS A REGISTRAR.

NOW, AS AN ISP, I HAVE SOMETHING ELSE TO ADD. WE HAVE 50% OF OUR CUSTOMER WHO ARE NOT USING THEIR DOMAIN NAME TO DO THEIR WEB SITE. THEY ARE USING A SUBDOMAIN. IN THAT CASE YOU DON'T HAVE ANY WHOIS INFORMATION. YOU HAVE ONLY OUR DOMAIN, SO WHEN YOU HAVE A PROBLEM YOU COME BACK TO US. SO I DON'T SEE WHY YOU'RE DOING A BIG DEAL FOR DOMAIN NAME WHERE FOR 50% YOU DON'T HAVE WHOIS INFORMATION.

THAT'S ALL.

>>THOMAS KELLER: STEVE, GO, BUT --

>>STEVEN METALITZ: COULD I ASK A COUPLE OF QUESTIONS?

HOW MANY REGISTRATIONS ARE THERE IN YOUR -- HOW MANY REGISTRATIONS DO YOU SPONSOR?

>>JEAN-MICHEL BECAR: 400,000.

>>STEVEN METALITZ: 400,000.

>>JEAN-MICHEL BECAR: IT'S QUITE BIG.

>>STEVEN METALITZ: MY QUESTION WAS, HOW WOULD THAT APPROACH SCALE? IT'S ONE THING TO SAY IF I LOCATE A PARTICULAR REGISTRATION AND IT HAPPENS TO BE ONE THAT YOU HAVE SPONSORED, THEN I CAN CALL YOU --

>>JEAN-MICHEL BECAR: YES.

>>STEVEN METALITZ: -- AND GET THIS INFORMATION. BUT YOU --

>>THOMAS KELLER: STEVE, JUST -- WE ARE NOT HERE TO DEBATE ANYTHING. WE'RE TRYING TO GET INPUT FROM THE FLOOR, SO....

>>STEVEN METALITZ: WELL, IF WE AREN'T GOING TO ASK QUESTIONS, THEN I'LL WITHDRAW MY QUESTION, BUT IF WE ARE ALLOWED TO ASK QUESTIONS, THAT'S WHAT I WAS TRYING TO DO.

>>THOMAS KELLER: OKAY. MAKE YOUR POINT.

>>STEVEN METALITZ: YOU REPRESENT, PERHAPS, ONE PERCENT OF ALL REGISTRATIONS, LET'S SAY, IN COM AND NET. HOW DOES THIS WORK IN TERMS OF SCALE? IF IT AFFECTS 160 OTHER REGISTRANTS DO I HAVE TO MAKE 160 PHONE CALLS?

>>JEAN-MICHEL BECAR: WE HAVE A WEB AGREEMENT WITH YOU AND THEN WE CAN HAVE A WEB PAGE, WE HAVE AN APPLICATION, SO YOU DON'T HAVE TO CALL US. WE HAVE AUTHENTICATION AND A CONTRACT ONLY WITH YOU, AND SO YOU CAN HAVE ACCESS TO REALTIME DATA.

>>STEVEN METALITZ: THE QUESTION IS HOW DOES IT SCALE TO 160 OTHER REGISTRARS. THAT'S MY QUESTION.

>>THOMAS KELLER: MARGIE.

>>MARC SCHNEIDERS: I WOULD LIKE TO REPLY QUITE BRIEFLY TO KIYOSHI, WHO DEFINES MY APPROACH TWICE AS SIMPLISTIC. AND I THINK IT IS SIMPLISTIC. HE DESCRIBED AT SOME LENGTH HOW IT WOULD OVERBURDEN TRADEMARK LAWYERS, IP LAWYERS, TO GET THE DATA.

I THINK THE REAL DISCUSSION IS WHETHER WE SHOULD SACRIFICE THE PRIVACY OF EVERYBODY TO MAKE THE LIFE OF A SPECIFIC SET OF LAWYERS EASIER.

OBVIOUSLY, AS STEVE SAID, IT MIGHT BE IN MY INTEREST TO ACTUALLY PUT MY DATA IN WHOIS BECAUSE THEN YOU CAN CONTACT ME. I GET A LETTER OR A PHONE CALL AND WOULD NOT BE SUED. IF I AM CLEVER, I WILL PUT SOME DATA IN MY WHOIS, BUT IF I LIKE TO BE UNCLEVER AND WANT TO DISAPPEAR COMPLETELY, I HAVE THAT OPTION NOW ANYWAY BECAUSE I WILL SIMPLY PUT IN FALSE DATA, AND YOU WON'T FIND ME EITHER.

THOSE WHO SQUAT ON DOMAIN NAMES USUALLY WANT TO SELL THEM TO YOUR CLIENT, STEVE, SO THEY WILL GIVE YOU SOME WAY TO CONTACT THEM; OTHERWISE, THEY WILL NEVER BE ABLE TO MAKE THEIR MONEY.

THANK YOU.

>>THOMAS KELLER: DO WE HAVE ANY FOLLOW-UP QUESTION FOR HIM? NO? MARGIE.

>>MARGIE: YES, HI, THIS IS MARGIE MILAM FROM MARKMONITOR.
ON THE ISSUE OF WHAT FIELDS SHOULD BE DISPLAYED, I WANTED TO FOLLOW UP ON A PRIOR POINT BECAUSE WE'RE FAMILIAR WITH THE CYBERSQUATTER MARKET. TYPICALLY, CYBERSQUATTERS WILL PROVIDE FALSE INFORMATION IN THE VARIOUS FIELDS, BUT THERE WILL BE ONE FIELD THAT'S ACCURATE. SO IN TRYING TO DETERMINE WHETHER SOMEONE IS A CYBERSQUATTER YOU HAVE TO SEARCH ALL FIELDS TO DETERMINE WHETHER OR NOT THEY ARE A CYBERSQUATTER, AND SO I WOULD ENCOURAGE KEEPING THE INFORMATION AS AVAILABLE AS POSSIBLE.

AND SECONDLY, IT'S NOT JUST AN IP INTEREST OR JUST A LAW ENFORCEMENT INTEREST, BUT IT'S REALLY A CONSUMER PROTECTION INTEREST, BECAUSE THERE'S A LOT OF SCAMS GOING ON RIGHT NOW WHERE THERE ARE BAD ACTORS TRYING TO TAKE THE PRIVATE INFORMATION FROM INDIVIDUALS, SUCH AS BANK ACCOUNTS, PASSWORDS. AND PEOPLE WHO ARE TRYING TO STOP THAT BEHAVIOR NEED TO HAVE ACCESS TO THE INFORMATION IN A PUBLIC MANNER. IT'S NOT JUST LAW ENFORCEMENT. IT'S CORPORATIONS, BANKS, FOR EXAMPLE, BECAUSE SOMETIMES THE LAW ENFORCEMENT COMMUNITY IS TOO BUSY AND IT MAY BE THE CORPORATION AFFECTED WHOSE CLIENTS ARE AFFECTED. IT COULD BE AN ISP, IT COULD BE A BANK.

>>KATHRYN KLEIMAN: MARGIE, TELEMARKETING FRAUDS OCCUR EVERY DAY USING THE TELEPHONE, TENS OF THOUSANDS OF TIMES A DAY PEOPLE CALL AND CONVINCE THEM TO PART WITH THEIR MONEY BY TELEPHONE. ARE WE SAYING THERE SHOULD BE NO UNLISTED TELEPHONE DIRECTORY, MAKE TELEPHONE NUMBERS PUBLIC FOR THOSE OF US WHO HAVE THE RIGHT IN SOME COUNTRIES TO HAVE THAT INFORMATION UNLISTED?

>>MARGIE: SURE, BECAUSE TO SEND AN E-MAIL IS FREE.

>>KATHRYN KLEIMAN: MY ACCESS ISN'T FREE. I PAY FOR IT.

>>MARGIE: CORPORATIONS WHO ARE TRYING -- NOT CORPORATIONS. A BAD ACTOR TRYING TO STEAL THE INFORMATION FROM AN INDIVIDUAL, THEY WILL TRY TO STEAL THE INFORMATION BY E-MAIL IN DOING SO.

>>KATHRYN KLEIMAN: IT SEEMS YOU'RE PRESUMING SOMEBODY IS ALREADY GUILTY.

>>MARGIE: UNFORTUNATELY, THERE ARE SCAMS OUT THERE AND THERE'S NOTHING TO STOP SOMEONE TO SEND A MILLION E-MAILS OUT TO GET BANK INFORMATION. THAT'S WHAT'S HAPPENING.

>>THOMAS KELLER: MARILYN.

>>MARILYN CADE: FIRST OF ALL, MARGIE, I'D LIKE TO THANK YOU AND OTHERS FOR CONTINUING TO PERSEVERE IN TRYING TO PROVIDE INFORMATION, SO LET ME SEE IF I COULD MAKE A REQUEST OF YOU.

I WAS FORTUNATE TO BE PRESENT IN THE AUDIENCE BEFORE NOT EVERYONE WHO IS HERE NOW WAS, AND YOU MADE REFERENCE TO A SURVEY YOU HAD DONE. I THINK IN THE INTEREST OF THE TASK FORCE'S COMMITMENT TO GATHER INFORMATION AND TO LOOK IMPARTIALLY AT THE INFORMATION THAT IT WOULD BE HELPFUL TO US IF WE COULD REQUEST ACCESS TO YOUR SURVEY.

I KNOW THAT EARLIER THERE WAS ALSO A COMMENT MADE ABOUT A PRESENTATION THAT GEORGE PAPAPAVLOU OF THE COMMISSION MADE, AND I'D LIKE TO ASK OUR ACTING CHAIR IF HE MIGHT FOLLOW UP AND REQUEST ACCESS TO THAT PRESENTATION FOR THIS TASK FORCE.

>>THOMAS KELLER: I WILL CERTAINLY DO SO.

>>MARGIE: YES, AND I'LL E-MAIL THE RESULTS OF OUR SURVEY TO YOU.
THANK YOU.

>>THOMAS KELLER: MILTON.

>>MILTON MUELLER: YEAH, I'M REALLY DISAPPOINTED THAT THE DIALOGUE ABOUT THIS ISSUE DOESN'T SEEM TO HAVE MADE ANY PROGRESS SINCE -- NOT EVEN SINCE THE MEETING BEFORE MONTREAL, REALLY.

IT SEEMS TO ME THAT WE HAVE PEOPLE THAT STAND UP AND SAY, GEE, THE WHOIS DATA IS REALLY USEFUL TO ME AND WE HAVE PEOPLE WHO STAND UP AND SAY GEE, WE HAVE PRIVACY RIGHTS INVOLVED. AND I THINK GEORGE PAPAPAVLOU GAVE US YESTERDAY VERY CLEAR GUIDELINES AS TO MOVE BEYOND THAT IMPASSE, AND THAT IS WE HAVE TO DEFINE THE PURPOSE OF THE WHOIS DATABASE; OKAY? WHAT IS THE PURPOSE OF THE WHOIS DATABASE?

ALL OF THESE DISCUSSIONS ARE IRRELEVANT. I DON'T CARE IF YOU FIND THE WHOIS DATA TO BE CONVENIENT AT SOME POINT OR ANOTHER. THAT DOESN'T MEAN YOU HAVE A RIGHT TO IT.

I FIND IT VERY CONVENIENT TO BE ABLE TO DOWNLOAD MP3S THAT ARE COPYRIGHTED FROM A PEER-TO-PEER FILE SHARING SERVICE, IT DOESN'T MEAN I HAVE THE RIGHT TO DO IT. AND I CAN GET A STRING OF 800 PEOPLE TO GET UP AND SAY HOW CONVENIENT IT IS TO DOWNLOAD THOSE.

LET'S TALK ABOUT PURPOSE. IT SEEMS TO ME WHAT I'M HEARING FROM CERTAIN PARTICIPANTS IN THIS PROCESS IS THAT THE PURPOSE OF THE WHOIS DATABASE FOR THEM IS TO GIVE THEM THE RIGHT TO BYPASS DUE PROCESS PROTECTIONS ON ACCESS TO INFORMATION. NOW, IF ICANN WANTS TO DECIDE THAT IS THE PURPOSE OF THE WHOIS DATABASE, THAT THEY DO WANT TO BASICALLY SHORT CIRCUIT TRADITIONAL DUE PROCESS ASPECTS OF GETTING ACCESS OF THAT CONTACT DATA, LET'S BE EXPLICIT ABOUT THAT. YOU MIGHT EVEN HAVE THE VOTES TO GET THAT THROUGH THE NAMES COUNCIL, BUT LET'S NOT HAVE ANY FUDGING ABOUT WHAT WE'RE SAYING THE PURPOSE OF THE WHOIS DATABASE IS.

IF YOU HAVE A DIFFERENT CONCEPT OF THE PURPOSE, LIKE US, IF YOU BELIEVE THAT IT IS FOR FUNDAMENTAL TECHNICAL COORDINATION ASPECTS HAVING TO DO WITH THE REGISTRATION, TRANSFER, AND SUPPORT OF DOMAIN NAMES, THEN LET'S MAKE THAT THE PURPOSE AND RELY ON MORE TRADITIONAL MECHANISMS OF DISCLOSURE FOR DUE PROCESS AND LAW ENFORCEMENT AND OTHER KINDS OF MONITORING OF ILLEGAL ACTIVITY.

THANK YOU.

>>THOMAS KELLER: THANK YOU. ANY QUESTION? THOMAS?

>>THOMAS ROESSLER: JUST A QUICK POINT OF INFORMATION, SINCE THE PRESENTATION OF GEORGE PAPAPAVLOU WAS MENTIONED BEFORE, THE POWERPOINT FILE CAN BE FOUND ON THE GNSO WEB SITE AT THE PUBLIC LIST OF THE REGISTRARS LIST. IF ANYONE IS INTERESTED, YOU CAN GO FIND IT THERE.

>>THOMAS KELLER: THANK YOU. NEXT, PLEASE.

>>FRANNIE WELLINGS: HI, I'M FRANNIE WELLINGS WITH THE NONCOMMERCIAL USERS. I WANT TO SAY, BASED ON MR. GEORGE PAPAPAVLOU'S SPEECH, THE INFORMATION ON THERE IS A DIRECTORY OF MY INFORMATION JUST LIKE IT'S AVAILABLE IN THE TELEPHONE BOOK AND I THINK I SHOULD HAVE THE RIGHT TO OPT IN TO THAT OR OPT OUT.

WE'VE BEEN TALKING A LOT ABOUT THE BAD ACTORS, AND THERE ARE SO MANY PEOPLE OUT THERE THAT ARE PUTTING IN INACCURATE INFORMATION REALLY TO PROTECT THEMSELVES. AND IF THAT'S THEIR ONLY RECOURSE BECAUSE THERE'S PUBLIC ACCESS AND BECAUSE THERE'S SO MUCH PERSONAL INFORMATION REQUIRED, THAT'S WHY YOU'RE GOING TO GET SO MUCH INACCURACY. SO IF YOU WANT TO IMPROVE THE INACCURACY, IF YOU WANT THIS DATA TO BE USED FOR ANYTHING, YOU HAVE TO PROTECT IT IN SOME WAY.

THANKS.

>>THOMAS KELLER: THANK YOU. I JUST WANT TO POINT OUT BEFORE WE GO ON WITH THE SESSION IS THAT WE'RE LOOKING FOR -- WHAT YOU'RE TRYING TO DO IS LOOK AT FACT FINDING, AND WHAT WE REALLY PUT OUT A QUESTION IS WHAT YOU USE THAT DATA FOR. WE'RE NOT ASKING ABOUT WHAT YOU WOULD LIKE WITH THAT DATA OR WHAT YOU DON'T LIKE WITH THAT DATA. WHAT WE'RE LOOKING FOR, FUNDAMENTAL QUESTIONS OF WHAT IT IS REALLY USED FOR. SO JUST TO CLARIFY THAT. WE'RE LOOKING FOR REALLY INPUT AND NOT OPINIONS, IF YOU MAY.

>>BRIAN CUTE: I DON'T WANT TO OPEN A CAN OF WORMS BUT I WANT TO TRY TO ANSWER THE QUESTION AMADEU ASKED OF KIYOSHI AND I UNDERSTAND THE NEED TO MANAGE TIME BUT I PERSONALLY DON'T FEEL COMFORTABLE WITH SPEAKERS BEING HUSTLED OFF THE MICROPHONE IN THE MANNER HE WAS. I THINK WE CAN CONDUCT OURSELVES BETTER THAN THAT.

I THINK THE QUESTION AND THE CONCERN WAS, ON KIYOSHI'S SIDE, IT MIGHT TAKE ME LONGER TO GET TO THAT DATA IN EXECUTING WHAT I HAVE TO DO. AND I BELIEVE THE ANSWER IS IF THE ACCESS METHOD IS USER ID AND PASSWORD, AUTHENTICATED, THAT THAT TAKES A MATTER OF SECONDS. SO IF WE ENDED UP IN A SCENARIO WHERE A LEGITIMATE INTEREST, PURSUING A LEGITIMATE PURPOSE, HAD AUTHENTICATED ACCESS, THAT I DON'T BELIEVE KIYOSHI WOULD EXPERIENCE ANY FURTHER DELAY IN GETTING AT THAT DATA. IF I'M OFF BASE, FEEL FREE TO CORRECT ME BUT I HOPE THAT HELPS.

>>KEN TAYLOR: HI, KEN TAYLOR, MARKSMEN. WE DO INVESTIGATIONS. WE USE THE DATA TO LOCATE PEOPLE. AND AS MUCH DATA AS WE CAN HAVE ACCESS TO HELPS US LOCATE THOSE PEOPLE FOR THE PURPOSES THAT WE'RE INVESTIGATING THEM.

AND IF THEY HAVE FALSE DATA IN CERTAIN FIELDS, BEING ABLE TO USE OTHER FIELDS IS HELPFUL. THAT'S HOW WE USE IT.

AS FAR AS IF THAT'S -- LIKE OTHER PEOPLE HAVE SAID, IF THERE'S WAYS TO KEEP THE GOOD CITIZENS' OF THE WORLD INFORMATION PRIVATE BUT HAVE PEOPLE LIKE ME WHO CAN GET THE INFORMATION TO FIND PEOPLE WHO ARE MISUSING IT, TO PROTECT CONSUMERS OR BRAND OWNERS OR WHATEVER THE USE IS, THEN THAT WOULD BE GREAT BUT THAT'S HOW WE USE IT.

>>THOMAS KELLER: WOULD IT BE GOOD ENOUGH FOR YOU IF YOU WOULD HAVE SOME KIND OF SPECIAL ACCESS, THEN, TO THE DATA OR DO YOU THINK IT MUST BE MADE PUBLICLY AVAILABLE IN GENERAL?

>>KEN TAYLOR: I DON'T THINK ANY LAW ENFORCEMENT OR BRAND OWNERS WOULD REQUIRE ALL THE INFORMATION BE MADE PUBLIC. AS LONG AS THEY HAVE ACCESS AND CAN DO WHAT THEY NEED TO DO, AND EVEN IF THAT'S TO MAKE A PHONE CALL LIKE KIYOSHI SAYS, THEN SO BE IT. DOESN'T HAVE TO BE PUBLICIZED TO EVERYBODY. AS A CITIZEN, I DON'T WANT MY PERSONAL INFORMATION OUT THERE FOR EVERYONE TO SEE. BUT AS AN INVESTIGATOR, I'D LIKE TO BE ABLE TO FIND PEOPLE, AND IF THAT'S ON A TIERED ACCESS OR PERMISSION BASIS OR SUBSCRIPTION BASIS, THAT'S FINE.

>>KATHRYN KLEIMAN: THANKS TO THE SPEAKER. THOMAS, I BELIEVE WE'VE MOVED ON TO A DIFFERENT QUESTIONNAIRE, AND I JUST WANTED TO POINT OUT, ARE WE ON THE QUESTIONNAIRE FOR ALL CONSTITUENCIES? IS THAT WHAT'S SHOWING UP OVER HERE? BECAUSE WE HAD THE REGISTRARS QUESTIONNAIRE UP AND COULD YOU SCROLL UP? ARE WE LOOKING AT EVERYONE'S QUESTIONNAIRE?

>>THOMAS KELLER: THAT IS EVERYONE'S.

>>KATHRYN KLEIMAN: COULD YOU SCROLL UP TO THE TOP?
AND SO I JUST WANTED TO DOUBLE-CHECK THAT THE -- OKAY, DOWN A LITTLE BIT FARTHER, THAT THE QUESTIONS ARE -- AND ALTHOUGH THE DEADLINE HAS PASSED, WE'RE STILL LOOKING FOR THIS INFORMATION. REGARDING THE EXISTING DATA FIELDS IN WHOIS, WHAT IS THE USE, WHAT IS THE NECESSITY OF THE USE, ARE THERE OTHER PLACES TO GET THAT DATA. AND WHAT ARE THE CONCERNS OF YOUR CONSTITUENCY REGARDING THE USE?

SO I JUST WANTED TO POINT OUT WE HAD MOVED ON TO A DIFFERENT QUESTIONNAIRE. THIS IS WHAT IT IS. WE WOULD LOVE TO GET MORE RESPONSES ON THIS.

AND THAT'S WHAT ALL OF THIS SEEMS TO BE ADDRESSING.

>>THOMAS KELLER: YES, THANK YOU FOR CLARIFYING THAT.
MARILYN.

>>MARILYN CADE: I WANT TO GO BACK TO THE PREVIOUS SPEAKER, IF I MIGHT, THE GENTLEMAN FROM MARKSMEN. MAY I?

YOU INDICATED IN YOUR RESPONSE, BECAUSE YOU WERE ASKED A QUESTION AND YOU RESPONDED TO IT, AND I GUESS I HAVE A LACK OF CLARITY ABOUT WHO YOU WOULD BE SPEAKING FOR IN YOUR RESPONSE, THE CHARACTERISTICS OF THOSE CLIENTS, PERHAPS, THAT YOU MIGHT REPRESENT.

I THOUGHT IN YOUR RESPONSE THAT YOU INDICATED THAT TRADEMARK HOLDERS -- I DON'T REMEMBER YOUR EXACT WORDS, MAYBE INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY HOLDERS, WOULD HAVE NO PROBLEM WITH HAVING SORT OF SUBSCRIPTION-BASED OR AUTHENTICATED ACCESS TO WHOIS. IS THAT RIGHT?

>>KEN TAYLOR: I GUESS CLARIFICATION IS MY OPINION IN WORKING WITH THEM THAT WOULD BE THE CASE, I CAN'T SPEAK FOR EVERY INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY OWNER.

>>MARILYN CADE: AND CAN I ASK YOU A QUESTION? DO YOU ACTUALLY HAVE SO-HO CLIENTS, VERY SMALL, ENTREPRENEURIAL, SMALL COMPANY CLIENTS AS WELL?

>>KEN TAYLOR: ABSOLUTELY.

>>MARILYN CADE: AND SO YOU REPRESENT A CERTAIN PERCENTAGE OF CLIENTS, BUT I'M ASSUMING THAT THERE WOULD STILL BE A LARGE NUMBER OF INDIVIDUALS WHO MIGHT DO THIS FUNCTION ON THEIR OWN?

>>KEN TAYLOR: CORRECT.

>>MARILYN CADE: HAVE YOU GIVEN THOUGHT TO WHAT AN AUTHENTICATION PROCESS MIGHT LOOK LIKE TO TRY TO BE ABLE TO REACH THOSE PEOPLE AS WELL?

>>KEN TAYLOR: FOR THEM TO HAVE ACCESS?

>>MARILYN CADE: YEAH.

>>KEN TAYLOR: I HAVEN'T, BECAUSE I DON'T SEE HOW YOU DO THAT EFFECTIVELY BECAUSE OTHERWISE, THERE'S NO REASON TO HAVE AUTHENTICATION. EVERYONE HAS ACCESS TO IT. I MEAN, THERE'S GOT TO BE SOME SORT OF PROTOCOL ON WHO HAS ACCESS. IF IT'S AN INVESTIGATIVE LICENSE OR YOU'RE ACKNOWLEDGED TO BE AN ATTORNEY OR LAW ENFORCEMENT OR REPRESENT A CERTAIN GROUP, WHATEVER THE CRITERIA FOR THAT ARE, THEN THERE HAS TO BE SOME SCREENING; OTHERWISE, ANYONE CAN SIGN UP AND SAY WHO THEY ARE AND GET ACCESS TO THAT DATA.

>>MARILYN CADE: BUT IF YOU STILL HAD AN AUTHENTICATION PROCESS, LET'S SAY YOU WERE THE CEO OF NET NANNY, AND THAT IS A CHILD SAFETY SOFTWARE, AND YOU WENT OUT ON THE WEB ON SUNDAY NIGHT AND YOU OBSERVED SOMEONE HAD PUT UP A SPOOF SITE THAT LED TO CHILD PORNOGRAPHY, WOULD THERE BE A PROCESS WHERE THAT PERSON COULD QUICKLY GET AUTHENTICATED AND THEN COULD PURSUE? BECAUSE IF YOU HAVE TO WAIT UNTIL MONDAY MORNING -- THAT'S WHAT I'M KIND OF TRYING TO ASK.

IN YOUR IDEA OF AN AUTHENTICATION PROCESS, COULD YOU INCORPORATE BEING ABLE TO OFFER INDIVIDUALS WHO HAVE LEGITIMATE NEEDS AS WELL? THEY MAY HAVE TO GO SOME STEPS TO GET AUTHENTICATED, BUT COULD SUCH A PROCESS INCORPORATE THOSE NEEDS AS WELL?

>>KEN TAYLOR: YEAH, I THINK AS LONG AS THAT PROCESS IS IDENTIFIED, SURE. BUT YEAH, THERE HAVE TO BE SOME STEPS IN THE BEGINNING TO SET THAT UP. AND THAT'S WHAT WE HAD TO DO AND THAT'S MY EXPERIENCE, AND THAT'S WORKED WELL.

>>MARILYN CADE: THANKS.

>>THOMAS KELLER: ARE YOU HAVING A QUESTION?

>>STEVEN METALITZ: JUST A VERY BRIEF QUESTION FOR KEN, AND IT'S REALLY THE SAME QUESTION I ASKED MR. BECAR BEFORE, WHICH IS HOW DOES THIS APPROACH SCALE? ARE YOU PREPARED TO SIGN 160 AGREEMENTS WITH 160 REGISTRARS IN ORDER TO GET THE ACCESS?

>>>: YES, YES.

>>KEN TAYLOR: I DON'T UNDERSTAND WHY IT CAN'T BE A FUNCTION OF ICANN, JUST LIKE IF THERE'S A REGISTRAR AGREEMENT. IF THAT'S PART OF HOW IT'S GOVERNED AND IT'S PAID FOR BY SUBSCRIPTION, THEN THAT WOULD FUND IT AND COVER THE STAFFING.

I THINK IT WOULD BE DIFFICULT TO SET IT UP WITH EACH INDIVIDUAL REGISTRAR. I THINK THAT WOULDN'T BE PRACTICAL. IF THERE'S AN OVERSEEING BODY THAT EVERYBODY HAS TO -- YOU KNOW, IF IT'S PART OF THE AGREEMENT, THEN THAT SEEMS TO ME TO BE THE SOLUTION AS FAR AS I'VE THOUGHT IT OUT.

>>THOMAS KELLER: KATHRYN, IS THERE A QUESTION?

>>KATHRYN KLEIMAN: YES, I HAVE A QUESTION NOT TO THE SPEAKER BUT BASED ON WHAT MARILYN SAID, I THROW OUT A QUESTION PARTICULARLY TO THE PEOPLE HERE WHO HAVE TECHNICAL KNOWLEDGE, WHICH IS BASED ON THE SCENARIO THAT MARILYN JUST GAVE US WHERE YOU HAVE A WEB SITE POINTING TO SOMETHING THAT YOU DON'T WANT IT POINTING TO, AND YOU WANT TO GET IT DOWN QUICKLY, DO YOU NEED ACCESS TO THE INDIVIDUAL OR DO YOU NEED ACCESS TO THE TECHNICAL CONTACT AND CAN THE TECHNICAL CONTACT GET THAT PAGE DOWN QUICKLY?

THIS IS ONE OF THE TYPES OF QUESTIONS THAT IT WOULD BE USEFUL TO HAVE INFORMATION ON IN THIS PARTICULAR TASK FORCE.

>>THOMAS KELLER: ELANA.

>>ELANA BROITMAN: THANKS. BEFORE I ACTUALLY SAY WHAT I MEANT TO COME UP AND SAY, IF I MAY JUST RESPOND TO SOMETHING KEN HAD SAID, BECAUSE I THINK IT GOES TO SOME OF THE ISSUES.

IN TERMS OF ACCESS, IF THERE WAS SORT OF AN ENCLOSED ACCESS FOR AUTHORIZED SEEKERS OF INFORMATION, I'M NOT SURE THAT WE ABSOLUTELY HAVE TO HAVE AN ICANN-APPROVED AGREEMENT TO FORMULATE THAT KIND OF ACCESS, FOR ALL REGISTRARS, FOR EXAMPLE.

I'M NOT SURE WHY WE COULDN'T HAVE SOMETHING THAT IS AGREED TO BY THE COMMUNITY, AND THE COMMUNITY CAN INCLUDE THE REGISTRARS AND THE VARIOUS LEGITIMATE INTERESTS, AND NOT HAVE TO GET INTO AN ICANN-APPROVED AGREEMENT WHICH CAN SLOW THINGS DOWN QUITE A BIT.

SO THAT'S SOMETHING I WANT TO THROW OUT THERE.

WHAT I WAS GETTING UP TO SAY WAS TO SORT OF GET AT QUESTION 1, "B" AND "C" MOSTLY.

WE AND I THINK A LOT OF OTHER REGISTRARS COMMUNICATE TO OUR CUSTOMERS AND POTENTIAL CUSTOMERS, REGISTRANTS REGARDING THE USE OF THEIR DATA IN A VARIETY OF DIFFERENT WAYS. IT'S IN THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF OUR CONTRACTS, IT'S IN THE FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS SECTION OF OUR SITE, WHICH MOST REGISTRARS HAVE. IT'S IN THE RENEWAL NOTICES, IN THE LATEST WHOIS NOTICE THAT HAD BEEN SENT OUT IN THIS PAST SIX MONTHS TO ASK REGISTRANTS TO UPDATE THEIR INFORMATION, ACTUALLY REQUIRE THEM TO UPDATE THEIR INFORMATION, OR ELSE THEIR NAME COULD BE TAKEN DOWN. IT'S CERTAINLY IN THE NOTICES THAT WE SEND FROM TIME TO TIME WHEN AN INACCURATE WHOIS NOTICE COMES IN.

I THINK PART OF THE PROBLEM IS THAT MOST REGISTRANTS DON'T PAY VERY CLOSE ATTENTION TO THAT AND TO THE PAY, SPECIFICALLY, THEIR DATA IS GOING TO BE USED AND WE'VE ALL BEEN CUSTOMERS OF OTHER SERVICES WHERE WE GET VERY LONG AGREEMENTS AND NEVER LOOK THROUGH EVERY LAST SENTENCE OF THE AGREEMENT.

AND SO I THINK WE ALL HAVE FACED THAT SITUATION AS WELL.

BUT THEN WE HEAR BACK FROM OUR CUSTOMERS WHEN THEY GET SPAMMED, ESPECIALLY WHEN THEY GET SPAMMED BY SOMEONE AS HAS HAPPENED TO US, WHO IS POSING AS AN AFFILIATE OF OURS AND THEY GET VERY UPSET WITH THAT.

AND I KNOW KATHY HAS SHARED WITH ME AND SHARED WITH OTHERS A SURVEY THAT THE NONCOMMERCIAL CONSTITUENCY HAS DONE, AN ANECDOTAL SURVEY, PERHAPS, AS TO HOW THE WHOIS INFORMATION IS BEING USED FOR BOTH ILLEGAL AND DISCONCERTING PURPOSES. AND I'M SURE THAT THOSE CONSUMERS WHO HAVE BEEN CONCERNED IN THAT CASE AS WELL.

I GUESS THE POINT I'M MAKING IS INFORMING REGISTRANTS ABOUT HOW THEIR DATA IS GOING TO BE USED, IT STILL ISN'T REALLY A GREAT ANSWER, UNFORTUNATELY, BECAUSE THEY GET VERY UPSET.
I THINK THE BETTER ANSWER IS BEING MORE FOCUSED ON WHO WILL GET INFORMATION -- WHO WILL GET ACCESS TO THAT MORE BROAD DATABASE OF INFORMATION AND HOW THAT ACCESS WILL BE DENIED TO THE BROADER PUBLIC THAT DOESN'T REALLY HAVE LEGITIMATE INTEREST IN IT.

AND I ALSO, REALISTICALLY, SORT OF WANT TO MAKE THE POINT THAT AS REGISTRARS, I THINK WE'RE BEING PUT IN A VERY DIFFICULT POSITION THAT'S REALLY AN ANOMALY IN MOST PRIVATE SECTOR ENVIRONMENTS IN THAT WE'VE GOT TO PUT A FULL DATABASE OF OUR CUSTOMERS OUT THERE FOR OUR COMPETITORS TO USE AGAINST US. I REALLY HAVEN'T SEEN THAT IN OTHER BUSINESS SECTORS, AND AS THIS SECTOR BECOMES MORE AND MORE COMPETITIVE AND MORE DIFFICULT, IT'S A REAL QUESTION OF WHY -- WHY THIS IS DIFFERENT FROM OTHER AREAS.

>>THOMAS KELLER: THANK YOU.
STEVE.

>>STEVE METALITZ: ELANA, THANK YOU.
I HAVE TWO QUESTIONS.
AND ALSO I WOULD ASK MY COLLEAGUES FROM THE NONCOMMERCIAL CONSTITUENCY IF WE'D BE INTERESTED IN HAVING THAT SURVEY SUBMITTED TO THIS TASK FORCE AS WELL, BECAUSE IT SOUNDS AS THOUGH IT HAS SOME INFORMATION THAT'S RELEVANT TO WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT.
MY TWO QUESTIONS ARE THIS.

FIRST, ON YOUR LAST POINT, WAS YOUR COMPANY AWARE OF THE FACT AT THE TIME THAT YOU SIGNED THE REGISTRAR ACCREDITATION AGREEMENT IN 1999 THAT YOU WOULD BE OBLIGATED TO, AS YOU PUT IT, MAKE YOUR CUSTOMER LIST AVAILABLE TO THE PUBLIC?

>>ELANA BROITMAN: OH, YOU KNOW THAT WE WERE, BECAUSE YOU KNOW THAT THOSE ACCREDITATION AGREEMENTS, OBVIOUSLY, WERE REVIEWED BY OUR ATTORNEYS AND OUR -- WANTING TO BE IN THE BUSINESS AND NEEDING TO PLAY BY THE RULES AS THEY WERE SET OUT WHERE WE HAD NO REAL NEGOTIATING POWER IS DIFFERENT FROM SAYING THAT WE LIKE THOSE TERMS.

WILL WE ABIDE BY THEM AS LONG AS THEY'RE THERE?
OF COURSE.
BUT THAT DOESN'T MEAN THAT THEY'RE STILL THE RIGHT TERMS FOR A SECTOR THAT'S DEVELOPED PAST THE 1999 CONDITIONS.

>>STEVE METALITZ: OKAY.
AND MAYBE ON THAT, YOU COULD -- IN THE RESPONSE THAT YOU WILL MAKE, I HOPE, TO THE CONSTITUENCY QUESTION AND TO THE REGISTRAR QUESTION IN PARTICULAR, MAYBE YOU CAN SPELL OUT IN PARTICULAR WHAT THOSE CHANGED CIRCUMSTANCES ARE SINCE 1999 THAT HAVE CHANGED YOUR VIEW.
SECOND, --

>>ELANA BROITMAN: ALTHOUGH, MAY --

>>STEVE METALITZ: GO AHEAD.

>>ELANA BROITMAN: ONE BRIEF COMMENT ON THAT, IF I MAY.
I PERSONALLY WASN'T AROUND FOR '99, BUT THIS IS WHAT I UNDERSTAND.

I THINK WHEN A LOT OF THOSE CONDITIONS WERE PUT INTO PLACE, THERE WAS A GREAT CONCERN ABOUT TRYING TO GROW THE SECTOR FROM A SINGLE COMPANY THAT WAS BOTH VERTICALLY AND HORIZONTALLY MONOPOLISTIC, TO A COMPETITIVE SECTOR.

THAT'S A VERY DIFFERENT ENVIRONMENT TODAY.
SO....

>>STEVE METALITZ: OKAY.
MY NEXT QUESTION, YOU TALKED ABOUT THE COMMUNICATIONS THAT YOU HAVE WITH REGISTRANTS ABOUT WHOIS.
AT WHICH POINT OR IN WHICH COMMUNICATION DO YOU OBTAIN THE CONSENT OF THE REGISTRANTS TO THE USE OF THEIR -- OF THE WHOIS DATA IN THE MANNER THAT'S PROVIDED FOR IN THE ACCREDITATION AGREEMENT?

>>ELANA BROITMAN: WELL, IT'S VERY FUNDAMENTAL, AND THERE MAY BE MORE THAN ONE POINT THAT I'M NOT THINKING OF NOW, BUT VERY FUNDAMENTALLY, IT'S IN THE AGREEMENT THAT THEY HAVE TO CLICK THROUGH.

>>STEVE METALITZ: OKAY.
IF YOUR CUSTOMERS ARE NOT AWARE OF THIS OR LATER ARE SURPRISED TO FIND THAT PEOPLE HAVE ACCESS TO THEIR DATA, IT'S BECAUSE THE WAY YOU -- COULD IT BE BECAUSE OF THE WAY IT HAS BEEN PRESENTED TO THEM?

>>ELANA BROITMAN: I DON'T THINK SO.
BECAUSE WE MAKE THAT INFORMATION AVAILABLE IN A LOT OF DIFFERENT WAYS.
I JUST THINK THE REALITY OF PEOPLE BUYING SERVICES THAT REALLY AREN'T TERRIBLY EXPENSIVE AND PEOPLE DON'T THINK TO READ EVERY -- IT'S NOT LIKE BUYING A HOME, WHERE YOU MAY ACTUALLY READ YOUR MORTGAGE.

>>STEVE METALITZ: OKAY.
THANK YOU.

>>THOMAS KELLER: KATHRYN FIRST, THEN MARILYN.

>>KATHRYN KLEIMAN: THANK YOU FOR THE EXTENSIVE COMMENTS.
I AM GOING TO USE THIS AS AN OPPORTUNITY TO POINT TO PARTS THAT YOU MIGHT FIND USEFUL AS TO WHAT THE TASK FORCE DOES.

WHAT YOU REFER TO AS A NONCOMMERCIAL SURVEY, WHICH I APPRECIATE, IS PART OF THE DATA THE NONCOMMERCIAL CONSTITUENCY HAS PROVIDED TO THIS QUESTIONNAIRE.
AND SO I WANTED TO POINT EVERYONE TO WHERE YOU CAN SEE WHAT HAS BEEN PROVIDED THUS FAR.
IF YOU GO TO ICANN.ORG ON THE TOP PAGE AND YOU SCROLL DOWN A LITTLE BIT IN THE MIDDLE SCREEN YOU WILL SEE QUESTIONNAIRES FROM THE TASK FORCES.

AND IF YOU GO TO THAT LINK, YOU WILL SEE THE QUESTIONNAIRES FROM TASK FORCE 2.
AND THERE'S A PLACE THAT HAS SURVEY RESPONSES. AND IT COLLECTS EVERYTHING THAT WE HAVE THAT'S BEEN SUBMITTED.
SO THERE YOU'LL FIND THE NONCOMMERCIAL CONSTITUENCY RESPONSE AS WELL AS OTHER RESPONSES.
BUT WE NEED MORE.
SO PLEASE RESPOND.

>>THOMAS KELLER: MARILYN.

>>MARILYN CADE: I ACTUALLY HAVE --

>> MIKE, MIKE, MIKE.

THE MICROPHONE.

>>MARILYN CADE: I'D LIKE TO MOVE US TO QUESTION 3, IF I MIGHT.
AND ASK ELANA TO PERHAPS RESPOND.

>>ELANA BROITMAN: OH, I BROUGHT I WAS ESCAPING.

>>MARILYN CADE: THE PURPOSE OF THIS OPPORTUNITY THAT THE TASK FORCE IS HOSTING IS REALLY TO TRY TO GATHER INPUT, AND OPINIONS ARE REALLY IMPORTANT TO HEAR.
BUT FACT-BASED INPUT IS, FOR US, A VERY IMPORTANT ASPECT.

HOPEFULLY, AS TASK FORCE MEMBERS, WE ARE TRYING TO KEEP A VERY OPEN MIND.
WE HAVE OUR OWN EXPERIENCES.
BUT THE IMPORTANCE OF THE DATA-GATHERING IS TO BROADEN THOSE EXPERIENCES BEYOND WHAT WE MIGHT PERSONALLY BELIEVE.

SO FOR THOSE OF YOU WHO HAVEN'T BEEN ABLE TO RESPOND TO THE QUESTIONNAIRES, IF YOU CAN, THAT WOULD BE TERRIFIC.

IF YOU NEED TO RESPOND ANONYMOUSLY, WHICH I'VE BEEN TOLD BY SEVERAL ENTITIES THAT THEY NEED TO, I THINK WE CAN TAKE IT UP WITH -- ACROSS THE THREE TASK FORCES AND FIGURE OUT HOW PEOPLE CAN DO THAT SO THERE'S AUTHENTICATION OF WHO THEY ARE, BUT THEY'RE ABLE TO PROVIDE THEIR DATA, IN ESSENCE, ANONYMOUSLY TO BE EVALUATED.

BUT I AM NOT GOING TO GIVE YOU THAT OPTION.
ON QUESTION 3, I WANTED TO ASK IF YOU TODAY PROVIDE AN OPTION TO YOUR REGISTRANTS WHEN THEY REGISTER THAT THEY CAN CHOOSE TO REGISTER ANONYMOUSLY.

WHEN YOU REGISTER FOR A TELEPHONE NUMBER, AT LEAST IN THE UNITED STATES, YOU DON'T ACTUALLY REGISTER ANONYMOUSLY FOR THAT TELEPHONE NUMBER.
YOU PROVIDE ALL OF THE CONTACT INFORMATION TO THE TELEPHONE COMPANY.
AND THE TELEPHONE COMPANY, BY LAW IN THE UNITED STATES, MUST MAINTAIN THAT DATA.
AND THEY THEN ARE ABLE -- AND YOU DO PAY FOR THAT.
AND THEY, THEN, ARE ABLE TO, WHEN LAW ENFORCEMENT COMES TO THEM, THEY ARE ABLE TO PROVIDE THAT ACCURATE DATA.

I AM AWARE OF MANY OTHER ANONYMOUS SERVICES THAT HAVE GROWN UP, AND I THINK WE MIGHT ASK YOU TO COMMENT AGAIN LATER, MANY ISPS PROVIDE FREE WEB PAGES AND HOSTING AND PROVIDE THAT ANONYMOUS SERVICE.

DOES YOUR SERVICE ACTUALLY PROVIDE ANONYMOUS SERVICES?

>>ELANA BROITMAN: WE DON'T PROVIDE ANONYMOUS SERVICE ON OUR RETAIL -- AT THE RETAIL LEVEL.
WE HAVE THAT SORT OF SERVICE AT THE CORPORATE LEVEL WHERE WE DEAL -- WHERE WE HAVE SALESPEOPLE DEALING WITH VERY LARGE CUSTOMERS.

AND WE DO, INDEED, TAKE THEIR INFORMATION.
AND THE TERMS UNDER WHICH WE TAKE IT ALLOW US TO PROVIDE THAT INFORMATION TO SOMEONE SEEKING IT UNDER THE APPROPRIATE CIRCUMSTANCES.

>>MARILYN CADE: SO, FOR INSTANCE, THE TERMS OF YOUR -- WHAT WE CALL IN THE ISP WORLD PROBABLY THE ACCEPTABLE USE POLICY OR THE SERVICE AGREEMENT, YOU HAVE SPELLED OUT TO THAT CORPORATION THAT SHOULD LAW ENFORCEMENT ASK YOU FOR THAT INFORMATION, YOU ARE FREE TO GIVE IT TO THEM?

>>ELANA BROITMAN: FOR EXAMPLE.

>>MARILYN CADE: FOR EXAMPLE.
THANK YOU.

>>THOMAS KELLER: THANK YOU, ELANA.
SO WE ARE ALMOST CLOSE TO THE END.
THE ONLY TWO ISSUES WE HAVEN'T COVERED RIGHT NOW IS THE CCTLD AND THE GAC QUESTIONS.
I MIGHT JUST --

>>JEAN-MICHEL BECAR: I HAVE ANOTHER COMMENT.

>>THOMAS KELLER: DO WE STILL HAVE COMMENTS?

>>JEAN-MICHEL BECAR: I HAVE ANOTHER COMMENT.
IF WE DON'T MAKE THIS WHOIS (INAUDIBLE) ROLLING FAST ENOUGH, I THINK MORE AND MORE REGISTRARS WILL START TO OFFER MORE AND MORE ANONYMOUS WHOIS DATA.
AND ALL PEOPLE WHO WANT THIS ACCESS, THEY WILL LOSE IT.

SO I THINK WE REALLY NEED TO FIND A SOLUTION PRETTY QUICKLY.
THAT'S ALL.

>>KATHRYN KLEIMAN: I WANTED TO MAKE A COMMENT IN RESPONSE TO MARILYN REGARDING ANONYMITY OF COMMENTS.

THAT HAS BECOME AN ISSUE THAT WE HAVE DEBATED ON THE TASK FORCE, WHETHER COMMENTS SHOULD BE SUBMITTED ANONYMOUSLY, ESPECIALLY WHEN THE ISSUE WE ARE DEBATING IS THE ANONYMITY OF THE DOMAIN NAME INFORMATION AND THE SPEAKERS, EVEN HUMAN RIGHTS SPEAKERS.

SO ANOTHER RECOMMENDATION THAT CAME UP IN THE TASK FORCE DISCUSSION BY TELEPHONE WAS, IF YOU WANT ANONYMITY, A GOOD WAY TO DO IT MIGHT BE TO GO THROUGH YOUR CONSTITUENCY AND KIND OF HAVE THE LEADERSHIP COMPILE THE INFORMATION AND SUBMIT IT, SO THAT IT'S KIND OF A GROUP SUBMISSION.

>>THOMAS KELLER: BRUCE.

>>BRUCE TONKIN: THANKS, THOMAS.
BRUCE TONKIN.

I JUST WANTED TO MAKE SOME GENERAL COMMENTS JUST OBSERVING THE DEBATE.
AND IT'S BEEN VERY GOOD TO SEE SO MANY PEOPLE PARTICIPATING AND OFFERING THEIR VIEWS.

THE FIRST COMMENT I WOULD MAKE IS THAT WE WOULDN'T BE HAVING THIS PROCESS AND THIS DISCUSSION IF IT WAS -- IF THE CURRENT SOLUTION IS CORRECT.
SO IT'S NOT.
WE NEED TO MAKE A CHANGE.

THE QUESTION, THEN, IS, WHAT IS THE BEST CHANGE TO MAKE THAT MEETS THE NEEDS BOTH OF LEGITIMATE USERS OF WHOIS, BUT ALSO PROTECTS THE MISUSE OF INFORMATION?

I NOTICE THERE'S BEEN QUITE A LOT OF COMMENTS ABOUT, I GUESS, THE ACCOUNTABILITY OF THE PERSON REGISTERING THE NAME.

AND I THINK WE ALL ACCEPT THAT A PERSON NEEDS TO BE ACCOUNTABLE FOR THE NAME THAT THEY HAVE REGISTERED AND WHAT THEY DO WITH THAT NAME.
BUT WE'RE NOT REALLY TALKING ABOUT WHETHER THE PERSON THAT IS RETRIEVING THAT INFORMATION FROM AN ANONYMOUS PUBLIC SERVICE IS ACCOUNTABLE FOR WHAT THEY DO WITH THE INFORMATION THAT THEY RETRIEVE.

AND THAT, I THINK, IS THE KEY IMPROVEMENT WE NEED TO MAKE.
MY FEELING IS THAT THE DATA WE COLLECT IS ABOUT RIGHT.
I THINK WE HAVE AGREEMENTS THAT STATE FOR THE REGISTRANT WHAT WE DO WITH THAT INFORMATION.
I THINK THAT PART IS SORT OF, YOU KNOW, 90% THERE.
BUT IF WE LOOK AT THE ACCESS SIDE, WE'VE GOT A ONE SIZE FITS ALL.

WE HAVE ANONYMOUS ACCESS WITH ABSOLUTELY NO ACCOUNTABILITY FOR THE PERSON MAKING THAT ACCESS.
AND THAT'S WHERE WE NEED CHANGE.
AND SO I'D HOPE THAT THE TASK FORCE AND THE COMMUNITY THINK ABOUT WHAT CHANGES CAN WE MAKE, BECAUSE THE CURRENT SYSTEM ISN'T PERFECT, THAT MEET THE NEEDS BOTH OF THOSE EXISTING LEGITIMATE USERS -- AND WE'VE HEARD MANY OF THOSE.

THERE'S THE INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY, LAW ENFORCEMENT, ET CETERA -- BUT ALSO MAKE THOSE INDIVIDUALS OR ORGANIZATIONS RETRIEVING THAT DATA ACCOUNTABLE.
AND ONE OF THE FIRST STEPS OF MAKING IT ACCOUNTABLE IS NOT MAKING IT ANONYMOUS.

IN OTHER WORDS, JUST AS WE EXPECT THE PERSON TO BE IDENTIFIED WHEN THEY REGISTER A NAME, I WOULD EXPECT THE PERSON TO BE IDENTIFIED WHEN THEY RETRIEVE FULL INFORMATION.
I THINK IT'S QUITE REASONABLE TO HAVE ANONYMOUS ACCESS TO SOME BASIC INFORMATION.

BUT ONCE WE'RE TALKING ABOUT FULL INFORMATION, THEN I THINK THAT NEEDS TO BE ACCOUNTABLE, WHICH MEANS YOU NEED TO IDENTIFY THE PERSON THAT'S ACCESSING THAT INFORMATION.
AND ONE OF THE THINGS FROM A TECHNICAL POINT OF VIEW, ONCE YOU HAVE IDENTIFIED SOMEBODY, YOU CAN THEN PUT SOME ACCESS POLICY.

AND ONE OF THOSE POLICIES MIGHT BE FOR A PARTICULAR LEGITIMATE USE OF, SAY, AN INDIVIDUAL WANTING TO RETRIEVE ONE RECORD, THAT THERE'S A SYSTEM THAT ALLOWS THEM TO RETRIEVE ONE RECORD.
IF IT'S A LARGE INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY COMPANY THAT IS DEALING WITH MANY THOUSANDS OF CLIENTS, WE MIGHT SAY, WELL LEGITIMATE ACCESS FOR THEM IS PERHAPS 100 QUERIES A DAY.
BUT IT'S CERTAINLY NOT THE ABILITY TO DOWNLOAD THE ENTIRE DATABASE.
SO I JUST OFFER THOSE GENERAL COMMENTS ABOUT HOW TO THINK ABOUT THE PROBLEM.

>>THOMAS KELLER: JUST A POINT FOR CLARIFICATION.
IT WAS A PERSONAL STATEMENT OF YOURSELF; IS THAT CORRECT?

>>BRUCE TONKIN: ABSOLUTELY.

>>THOMAS KELLER: THANK YOU.
DO WE HAVE ANY OTHER COMMENTS FROM THE FLOOR ABOUT THAT SUBJECT OR ANY SUBJECT WE RAISED BEFORE?
STEVE.

>>STEVE METALITZ: I JUST WANTED TO RESPOND TO BRUCE'S COMMENTS VERY BRIEFLY.
I THINK HE RAISED AN EXCELLENT POINT.
AND WE HAVE ONE VERY SMALL PRECEDENT TO GO BY HERE.
AND THAT IS -- IN RELATION TO WHAT HE WAS TALKING ABOUT.
AND THAT IS THE CHANGES TO THE WHOIS POLICY FOR DOT NAME, WHICH WERE APPROVED BY THE BOARD I BELIEVE AT SHANGHAI OR SHORTLY THEREAFTER.

I'M NOT ENTIRELY SURE ON THE CHRONOLOGY.
BECAUSE THAT PROVIDED A SYSTEM IN WHICH THERE WAS NO LONGER ANONYMOUS ACCESS TO THE MOST COMPLETE SET OF DATA.
THERE STILL WAS TO MORE LIMITED SETS OF DATA.

THE REASON I SAY IT'S A VERY PARTIAL PRECEDENT IS BECAUSE, AS I UNDERSTAND IT, THAT SYSTEM, ALTHOUGH AUTHORIZED, HAS NOT BEEN IMPLEMENTED.
AND THE OTHER ISSUE THAT IT WOULD RAISE, WHICH I HAVE ALREADY MENTIONED A COUPLE OF TIMES, IS, HOW DOES IT SCALE?

IF THAT SYSTEM WORKED WELL FOR ONE REGISTRY WITH A QUITE SMALL, RELATIVELY, NUMBER OF REGISTRATIONS, WOULD IT ALSO WORK FOR DOT-COM, THIN REGISTRY WITH MANY REGISTRARS AND A LOT MORE REGISTRATIONS?
SO THAT WOULD BE THE ISSUE WITH THE PRECEDENT THERE.
AND I WISH WE HAD SOME DATA ABOUT HOW IT WAS WORKING.
BUT IT'S NOT IN PLACE YET.

SO MAYBE GETTING THAT IN PLACE AND SEEING HOW THAT WORKED WOULD -- IF THAT COULD BE DONE -- WOULD HELP PROVIDE US SOME DATA.
THANK YOU.

>>THOMAS KELLER: THANK YOU.
IF THERE ARE NO MORE COMMENTS FROM THE FLOOR, I WOULD JUST THANK ALL THE PARTICIPANTS.
DO WE HAVE QUESTIONS ON THE BOARD STILL?
NO.
THANKS, PARTICIPANTS --

>>KATHRYN KLEIMAN: ONE MORE, ACTUALLY.
THERE HAS BEEN ONE EXTENSION OF A DEADLINE FOR EVERYBODY WHO IS IN TOUCH WITH THEIR GAC MEMBERS, THERE WAS SOME ISSUE ON THE DISTRIBUTION OF THE SURVEY REGARDING NATIONAL PRIVACY LAWS.

AND THE EXTENSION HAS GONE TO -- I MEAN, THEY'RE WELCOME TO SUBMIT WHENEVER.
BUT IT WOULD BE MOST USEFUL IF SUBMITTED BY MARCH 15TH, I BELIEVE, IS THE NEW DEADLINE.
SO -- AND THAT SURVEY'S BEEN RECENTLY POSTED, ALONG WITH THE OTHER SURVEYS.
SO IF YOU KNOW YOUR GAC MEMBERS, ENCOURAGE THEM TO RESPOND, PLEASE.

>>THOMAS KELLER: OKAY.
THANK YOU.
AND, AGAIN, I THANK YOU FOR THE PARTICIPATION.
I THINK IT WAS QUITE FRUITFUL HEARING THE DIFFERENT VIEWS.
AND WE WILL COLLECT IT AND USE IT FOR OUR TASK FORCE WORK.
THANK YOU.

>>STEVE METALITZ: WHAT TIME DO WE RECONVENE, DO WE KNOW, FOR THE NEXT WORKSHOP?
JUST --

>>THOMAS KELLER: YEAH, IT'S RECONVENING AT 1: 15.

>>STEVE METALITZ: WE'RE NOT HAVING A LUNCH BREAK AT ALL?
ALL RIGHT.

(TASK FORCE 2 CONCLUDED.)

© Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers