/
Motions 4 March 2009

Motions 4 March 2009

Owned by Former user (Deleted)
Last updated: Mar 31, 2011Version comment

Motion 1 - withdrawn

DRAFT MOTION Registrar Accreditation Agreement (RAA) (with friendly amendment from Avri Doria)
==============================================================================================

Proposed by Mike Rodenbaugh

Seconded by Terry Davis

Whereas, the RAA has not been amended since inception,
and there is widespread community support for amendments
to various provisions of the RAA.

Whereas, the Registrars Constituency and ICANN Staff have
bagreed on a set of proposed amendments to the RAA, and that
set of amendments has been considered for approval by the
GNSO Council.

Whereas, the GNSO Council did not reach super-majority support
for the full set of proposed amendment as drafted though many
members support many of the proposed amendments..

Whereas, the Council seeks to determine which of the proposed
amendments (agreed between ICANN Staff and the Registrars Constituency)
are non-contentious, and then consider next steps as to those
non-contentious, proposed ameendments..

RESOLVED:

The GNSO Council will form a fast-track Working Group to convene
and discuss the proposed set of RAA Amendments, reporting back to
Council within 30 days with answers to the following questions:

1. Which of the proposed amendments have rough consensus as drafted?
2. Which of the proposed amendments would have rough consensus if
drafted differently, and what specific revisions are required to gain
rough consensus?
3. Which of the proposed amendments do not have rough consensus?
4. What other issues with the RAA are not addressed by the proposed set
of Amendments?

The working established by this motion will work according to the
process defined in the interim working group process

Motion 1 alternate

Motion made by Tim Ruiz
Seconded by Kristina Rosette
Whereas, the Registrar Accreditation Agreement (RAA) has not been
amended since May 2001, and ICANN has undertaken a lengthy consultative
process related to amending the RAA, including several public comment
periods and consultations;

Whereas, the proposed changes to the RAA include important compliance
and enforcement tools for ICANN; The Council wishes to approve the set
of proposed amendments as quickly as possible so that the ICANN Board
may review them, and if approved then implement them as quickly as
possible; and

Whereas,

The Council would like to proceed on the drafting of a charter
identifying registrant rights that registrars would be obliged to link
to, as contemplated in the set of amendments;

The Council would like a specific process and timeline to move forward
with additional potential amendments to the RAA; and

The Registrar Constituency is supportive of these efforts and is willing
to participate on a good faith basis on anticipated next steps.

Resolved:

The GNSO Council supports the RAA amendments as documented in
http://gnso.icann.org/drafts/current-list-proposed-raa-amendments-16dec08.pdf
and recommends to the Board that they be adopted at its meeting of March 6, 2009;

Within 30 days of Board approval of the set of amendments, representatives from
the GNSO community and the ALAC shall be identified to participate in drafting a
registrant rights charter, as contemplated by the amendments and the current GNSO
Council discussions, with support from ICANN staff. A draft charter shall be
completed no later then July 31; and

Within 30 days of Board approval of the set of amendments, the GNSO
Council will form a Drafting Team to discuss further amendments to the
RAA and to identify those on which further action may be desirable. The
Drafting Team should endeavor to provide its advice to the Council and
ICANN staff no later then July 31, 2009.

Motion 2 deferred to next Council meeting

Proposed by: Avri Doria

Seconded by: Chuck Gomes

Whereas:

On 11 December 2008, The ICANN Board of Directors requested a report
on the future involvement of users in the GNSO, and

On 29 January 2009, the GNSO council resolved to identify user
representatives, especially individual users, who would be willing
to work with the ALAC and At- Large community to develop a recommendation, and

On 20 February, 2009, Alan Greenberg on behalf of the working group
convened by ALAC and the GNSO Council sent a report on the Board's
request relating to User Involvement in the GNSO. This report can be
found at:
http://gnso.icann.org/correspondence/gnso-alac-to-icann-board-20feb09-en.pdf

Resolved:

The GNSO Council endorses the report submitted on behalf of the
Working Group convened by the ALAC and GNSO Council on User Involvement
in the GNSO.

Motion 3

Proposed by: Chuck Gomes

Seconded by: Tony Holmes, Olga Cavalli, Kristina Rosette

GNSO Council motion to pursue cost estimates of selected Whois studies.

Whereas:

  • In Oct-2007, the Generic Names Supporting Organization (GNSO) Council concluded

that a comprehensive, objective and quantifiable understanding of key factual issues
regarding the gTLD Whois system would benefit future GNSO policy development efforts(http://gnso.icann.org/resolutions/ )

  • Before defining the details of these studies, the Council solicited suggestions from the

community for specific topics of study on WHOIS.Suggestions were submitted
(http://forum.icann.org/lists/WHOIS-comments-2008/ ) and ICANN staff prepared a
'Report on Public Suggestions on Further Studies of WHOIS', dated 25-Feb-2008
(http://gnso.icann.org/issues/Whois-privacy/Whois-study-suggestion-report-25feb08.pdf )

  • On 28-Mar-2008 the GNSO Council resolved to form a WHOIS Study Working Group to develop a

proposed list, if any, of recommended studies for which ICANN staff will be asked to provide
cost estimates to the Council (http://gnso.icann.org/meetings/minutes-gnso-27mar08.shtml )

  • The WHOIS Study WG did not reach consensus regarding further studies, and on 25-Jun-2008

the GNSO Council resolved to form another group of volunteers (WHOIS Hypotheses WG) to
review the 'Report on Public Suggestions on Further Studies of WHOIS' and the GAC letter
on WHOIS studies. (http://www.icann.org/correspondence/karlins-to-thrush-16apr08.pdf)

  • This WG was tasked to prepare a list of hypotheses to be tested, and to deliver a report to the Council.The Whois Hypotheses WG delivered its report to the Council on 26-Aug-2008.

(https://st.icann.org/Whois-hypoth-wg/index.cgi?Whois_hypotheses_wg#Whois_study_hypotheses_wg_final_report ).

  • On 29-Oct-2008 the Registry constituency circulated its recommendations for consolidating

and considering further Whois studies. http://gnso.icann.org/drafts/gnso-whois-study-recommendations-ryc-29oct08.pdf

  • On 5 November 2008 the GNSO Council decided to convene a series of special meetings on Whois

studies, and to solicit further constituency views assessing both the priority level and the
feasibility of the various Whois studies that have been proposed, with the goal of deciding
which studies, if any, should be assessed for cost and feasibility. The Council would then
ask staff to perform that assessment, and, following that assessment, the Council would decide
which studies should be conducted. Council Chair Avri Doria convened a volunteer group of
Councilors and interested constituency members to draft a resolution regarding studies, if
any, for which cost estimates should be obtained. This ‘Whois Study Drafting Team’ is
tracked on a wiki page at whois discussion.

  • The Whois Study Drafting Team further consolidated studies and data requested by the GAC.

For each of the consolidated studies, constituencies were invited to assign priority rank and
assess feasibility.5 constituencies provided the requested rankings, while 2 constituencies
(NCUC and Registrars) indicated that no further studies were justified.The GAC was also
invited to assign priorities, but no reply was received as of 22-Jan-2009.

  • The Drafting Team determined that the six studies with the highest average priority

scores should be the subject of further research to determine feasibility and obtain cost
estimates. The selection of these initial studies does not foreclose further consideration
of the remaining studies.

Resolved:

  • Council requests Staff to conduct research on feasibility and cost estimates for the

 Whois studies listed below, and report its findings to Council as soon as possible,
noting that Staff need not fulfill the full request at once but may fulfill the requirements in stages.

  1.  
    1. Group A (Studies 1, 14, 21 and GAC data set 2):
      • Study 1 hypothesis: Public access to WHOIS data is responsible for a material number

of cases of misuse that have caused harm to natural persons whose registrations do not
have a commercial purpose. http://forum.icann.org/lists/whois-comments-2008/msg00001.html

  •  
    •  
      • Study 14 hypothesis: The Whois database is used only to a minor extent to generate

spam and other such illegal or undesirable activities. http://forum.icann.org/lists/whois-comments-2008/msg00017.html

  •  
    •  
      • Study 21 and GAC data set 2 hypothesis: There are significant abuses caused by public

display of Whois. Significant abuses would include use of WHOIS data in spam generation,
abuse of personal data, loss of reputation or identity theft, security costs and loss of data.http://forum.icann.org/lists/whois-comments-2008/msg00026.html

  1.  
    1. Study 11.
      • Study 11 hypothesis: The use of non-ASCII character sets in Whois records will detract

from data accuracy and readability. http://forum.icann.org/lists/whois-comments-2008/msg00014.html

  1.  
    1. Group B (Studies 13, 17, GAC 1 & GAC 11)
      • Study 13 hypotheses: a) The number of proxy registrations is increasing when compared

with the total number of registrations; b) Proxy and private WHOIS records complicate the
investigation and disabling of phishing sites, sites that host malware, and other sites
perpetrating electronic crime as compared with non-proxy registrations and non-private
registrations; c) Domain names registered using proxy or privacy services are disproportionately
associated with phishing, malware, and other electronic crime as compared with non-proxy
registrations or non-private registrations. http://forum.icann.org/lists/whois-comments-2008/msg00016.html

  •  
    •  
      • Study 17 hypothesis: The majority of domain names registered by proxy/privacy services

are used for abusive and/or illegal purposes. http://forum.icann.org/lists/whois-comments-2008/msg00020.html

  •  
    •  
      • GAC Study 1 hypothesis: The legitimate use of gTLD WHOIS data is curtailed or prevented

by the use of proxy and privacy registration services.

  •  
    •  
      • GAC Study 11 hypothesis: Domain names registered using proxy or privacy services are

disproportionately associated with fraud and other illegal activities as compared with non-proxy registrations.

  1.  
    1. Group E (Studies 3 & 20)
      • Study 3 hypothesis: Some proxy and privacy services are not revealing registrant/licensee

data when presented with requests that provide reasonable evidence of actionable harm, as
required to avoid liability under registration agreement provisions that reflect the
requirements of RAA 3.7.7.3. http://forum.icann.org/lists/whois-comments-2008/msg00003.html

  •  
    •  
      • Study 20 hypothesis: Some proxy and privacy services do not promptly and reliably relay

information requests to and from registrants/licensees. http://forum.icann.org/lists/whois-comments-2008/msg00023.html

  1.  
    1. Group C (GAC Studies 5 & 6)
      • GAC Study 5 hypothesis: A significant percentage of registrants who are legal entities

are providing inaccurate Whois data that implies they are natural persons. Furthermore the
percentage of registrants with such inaccuracies will vary significantly depending upon the
nation or continent of registration.

  •  
    •  
      • GAC Study 6 hypothesis: A significant percentage of registrants who are operating domains

with a commercial purpose are providing inaccurate Whois data that implies they are acting
without commercial purposes. Furthermore the percentage of registrants with such inaccuracies
will vary significantly depending upon the nation or continent of registration.

  1.  
    1. Group D (Studies 18, 19, GAC 9 & GAC 10)
      • Study 18 hypothesis: The majority of domain names registered by proxy/privacy services

are used for commercial purposes and not for use by natural persons. http://forum.icann.org/lists/whois-comments-2008/msg00021.html

  •  
    •  
      • Study 19 hypothesis: A disproportionate share of requests to reveal the identity of

registrants who use proxy services is directed toward registrations made by natural persons. http://forum.icann.org/lists/whois-comments-2008/msg00022.html

  •  
    •  
      • GAC Study 9 hypothesis: A growing and significant share of proxy/privacy service users

are legal persons.

  •  
    •  
      • GAC Study 10 hypothesis: A growing and significant share of domains that are registered

using proxy/privacy services are used for commercial purposes.

improvement in Whois policy. Many submitters also described the type of survey/study needed,
including data elements, data sources, population to be surveyed, and sample size.

  • Staff is invited to pursue creative ways to develop cost estimates for these studies, including re-formulations of the suggested hypotheses.At any time, Staff may come back to Council with questions regarding study hypotheses.
  • Staff is also requested to consider the results obtained

from the ALAC on its priorities for studies and include any of studies that,
based on the same prioritization, fit in the groups
designated in this resolution.

  • Council further requests that Staff communicate the resolution to GAC representatives once

it has been approved.

^^