[council] Draft Charter for new Whois Working Group

[Ross Rader]

Per my earlier message, the proposed SOW is somewhat incongruent with  
the motion we passed at Council. I agree that completely revisiting  
the motion is probably not our best option, but we should at least  
seek to ensure that the SOW is consistent with the motion, which I  
don't believe is the case right now.

On 11-Apr-07, at 4:32 PM, Gomes, Chuck wrote:

> I think we also have to be careful about undoing the extensive work  
> that
> was done 'live' in Lisbon in crafting the motion.  We spent the  
> majority
> of our time in the Council meeting in Lisbon on this one issue and  
> even
> worked through what was supposed to be a lunch break.  If we  
> restart the
> process of amending the motion over again I am fearful that we will
> again spend the majority of our meeting time trading amendments  
> without
> moving the process forward.  I doubt very seriously that there is any
> possibility of writing the motion so that it perfectly satisfies
> everyone but the important thing is make it clear enough that
> constructive work can proceed in a timely fashion.  I agree that  
> the SoW
> needs to be reasonably bounded but I would oppose making it so
> restrictive that creative thinking was limited that might result in
> totally new approaches not yet considered.  It's not as if strong
> consensus was reached by the working group so there seems to be plenty
> of room for collaborative work if all sides are willing to commit  
> to it.
>
> I would suggest that we limit the time we spend discussing and
> considering amendments; if quick consensus can be reached, fine; if  
> not,
> then it might be best to accept the motion as drafted in Lisbon and  
> work
> on forming the group, identifying a chair, finalizing the procedural
> guidelines, etc.
>
> Chuck Gomes
>
> "This message is intended for the use of the individual or entity to
> which it is addressed, and may contain information that is privileged,
> confidential and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. Any
> unauthorized use, distribution, or disclosure is strictly  
> prohibited. If
> you have received this message in error, please notify sender
> immediately and destroy/delete the original transmission."
>
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: owner-council at gnso.icann.org
>> [mailto:owner-council at gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Robin Gross
>> Sent: Wednesday, April 11, 2007 2:50 PM
>> To: Maria Farrell; 'Council GNSO'
>> Subject: Re: [council] Draft Charter for new Whois Working Group
>>
>> NCUC amends this motion to include one additional point of
>> clarification that is necessary to keep this working group focused.
>>
>> The objective proposed in the draft charter is badly worded
>> because it would allow for each and every recommendation of
>> the previous whois task force to be revisited ("examine the
>> issues raised with respect to the policy recommendation of
>> the task force and make recommendations concerning how those
>> policies may be improved...).
>>
>> This new working group is not meant to "undo" the three years
>> of work on the whois task force.  Therefore it is important
>> that we keep this new working group on track by more clearly
>> stating the objective.
>>
>> NCUC proposes to amend the basic objective [new words in
>> CAPS] as follows:
>>
>> "The objective of the working group is to examine the
>> IMPLEMENTATION issues raised BY the recommendED OPOC PROPOSAL
>> of the task force, and make recommendations concerning how
>> THE OPOC PROPOSAL may be IMPLEMENTED IN A WAY TO ADDRESS
>> THOSE ISSUES."
>>
>> Thank you,
>> Robin
>>
>> Robin Gross wrote:
>>
>>> In considering this WG charter April 12, NCUC moves to amend it as
>>> follows:
>>>
>>> Under section 4b, Change the sentence "Determine how third
>> parties may
>>> access registration data that is no longer available for
>> unrestricted
>>> public query-based access for legitimate activities."
>>> to...
>>> Determine which third parties, under which conditions, may access
>>> registration data that is no longer available for
>> unrestricted public
>>> query-based access."
>>> Also, strike the 8 paragraphs beginning "The GAC policy
>>> principles...."
>>>
>>> Reason:
>>> The opening sentence of 4b reads as if ANY third party will
>> be given
>>> access to the data for any activity. But this begs the
>> policy question
>>> that the WG must answer, which is WHICH third parties
>> (e.g., just law
>>> enforcement agencies, or others) and under WHAT CONDITIONS.
>>>
>>> As for the second change, having discussed this with GAC
>> members, the
>>> objections of the EU to the language was resolved by
>> stating that some
>>> of the ACTIVITIES that Whois data was used for was legitimate, but
>>> this did not necessarily mean that ACCESS TO THE PRIVATE
>> DATA was also
>>> legitimate. Also, the Whois task force has already
>> determined that the
>>> purpose of Whois does not include many of these activities,
>> so there
>>> is no obligation on ICANN to make the data available for
>> those activities.
>>>
>>>
>>> Thank you,
>>> Robin
>>>
>>>
>>> Ross Rader wrote:
>>>
>>>> Maria -
>>>>
>>>> Many thanks for turning this around so quickly. The draft is
>>>> generally great. I'd like to suggest that the section
>> entitled "work
>>>> plan" uses the relevant text of the resolution instead of the
>>>> language currently employed. In a couple of places, the work plan
>>>> outlines a much greater scope of work than that
>> contemplated by the
>>>> resolutions, specifically;
>>>>
>>>> 4.a proposed expands the examination of the definition of
>> the roles
>>>> to all contacts, whereas the resolution only sought to examine the
>>>> definition of the operational point of contact.
>>>>
>>>> 4.b proposed requests the WG to determine how third parties may
>>>> access unpublished data for legitimate activities, whereas the
>>>> resolution only seeks to describe how legitimate interests will
>>>> access unpublished data. The difference seems small, but
>> the proposed
>>>> language requests the creation of a comprehensive proposal that
>>>> describes an access mechanism for a long list of "legitimate
>>>> activities" rather than a proposal that describes an
>> access mechanism
>>>> for use by legitimate interests.
>>>>
>>>> 4.c proposed additionally requests the WG to determine how the
>>>> distinctions should be made whereas the Council resolution only
>>>> sought to discover if the distinctions in question were
>> possible to
>>>> make.
>>>>
>>>> In each of these cases, it might just make the most sense
>> to rely on
>>>> the text of the original resolution as ratified by Council
>> to ensure
>>>> that we don't lose clarity on our actual objectives.
>>>>
>>>> Second, a question. Concerning the issue of defining
>> agreement. When
>>>> it comes to understanding what constitutes "broad agreement", will
>>>> this be measured on the views shared by individuals or
>> interest groups?
>>>>
>>>> Finally, in order to ensure that we're all working from the same
>>>> foundation, it might make sense to specifically include the policy
>>>> recommendations of the task force in the document itself,
>> either as a
>>>> summary, or an annex that we can easily refer to. The policy
>>>> recommendations that I am referring to are included in
>> section 4 of
>>>> the report, as per the clarifications I made during our discuss at
>>>> the recent Council meeting.
>>>>
>>>> Thanks again,
>>>>
>>>> -ross
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 30-Mar-07, at 2:51 PM, Maria Farrell wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Dear Council members,
>>>>>
>>>>> Attached is the draft Charter that sets out the statement of work
>>>>> and working methodologies of the Whois Working Group, created by
>>>>> resolution of the GNSO Council in Lisbon, on 28 March.
>>>>>
>>>>> Please review it and note that it will be an agenda item for
>>>>> discussion and adoption at the next Council meeting on 12 April.
>>>>>
>>>>> Also, please email this list if you wish to be on the
>> Working Group,
>>>>> and feel free to to put any interested constituency members or
>>>>> outside experts in touch with me for further information.
>>>>>
>>>>> All the best, Maria
>>>>> <Whois Working Group Charter2.doc>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Ross Rader
>>>> Director, Retail Services
>>>> t. 416.538.5492
>>>> c. 416.828.8783
>>>> http://www.domaindirect.com
>>>>
>>>> "To solve the problems of today, we must focus on tomorrow."
>>>> - Erik Nupponen
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>

Ross Rader
Director, Retail Services
t. 416.538.5492
c. 416.828.8783
http://www.domaindirect.com

"To solve the problems of today, we must focus on tomorrow."
- Erik Nupponen