[council] Draft Charter for new Whois Working Group

Wed Apr 11 20:55:15 UTC 2007

I agree with Chuck

Tony Harris

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes at verisign.com>
To: <robin at ipjustice.org>; "Maria Farrell" <maria.farrell at icann.org>; 
"Council GNSO" <council at gnso.icann.org>
Sent: Wednesday, April 11, 2007 5:32 PM
Subject: RE: [council] Draft Charter for new Whois Working Group


>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
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
>
>
>