<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD><TITLE></TITLE>
<META http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=us-ascii">
<META content="MSHTML 6.00.2900.2802" name=GENERATOR></HEAD>
<BODY><!-- Converted from text/plain format -->
<P><FONT size=2><FONT face=Arial>Mawaki, you ask some direct questions. Here are
my replies.<BR><BR><FONT color=#0000ff>Q1. If I understand well, are you saying
that your proposed definition of the purpose for which the data is collected
does not imply that the WHOIS data must remain publicly accessible?<BR></FONT>A:
Correct. These are separate issues.</FONT></FONT></P>
<P><FONT size=2><FONT face=Arial><FONT color=#0000ff>Q2. It turns out to be
that, whether you like it or not, the objective of this policy development and
TF is to address the issue of the WHOIS data being made public, as any one can
clearly see from the three points of the ToR recalled by Ross:<BR>a) Figure out
if the current data being published is appropriate (whether it should be
broadened or narrowed)<BR>b) Figure out if all of this data should be made
public.<BR>c) Specify how data that is not being made public can be
accessed.<BR></FONT><BR>A: YES. This is exactly the issue. Different people are
making different starting assumptions. But my assumption is a different
sequence to Ross's. </FONT></FONT></P>
<P><FONT size=2><FONT face=Arial>a) Define the purposes for which we want
data. </FONT></FONT><FONT size=2><FONT face=Arial>b) THEN, determine
access to that data taking into account privacy needs. (I am absolutely in
favour of data privacy - my own included!).<BR><BR><FONT color=#0000ff>Q3. Do
you think the question of determining whether the WHOIS data must be publicly
available or not (as your refined proposal remains silent on this, while it was
the job of the TF to find out), so do<BR>you think it is a question the GNSO
Council should not bother asking?<BR></FONT><FONT color=#000000>A: This is a key
question for the GNSO.</FONT></FONT></FONT></P>
<P><FONT size=2><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff>Q4. Do you think it ICANN's
mission to cater for law enforcement, just because there might be unlawful deeds
over the Net? </FONT></FONT></P>
<P><FONT size=2><FONT face=Arial>A: ICANN's earliest and most successful
consensus policy is the UDRP. That is all about fairness and consumer
protection.We cannot ignore this key issue. If we do governments will rightly
condemn us.If we have no interest in this why did we start the PDP?
<BR><BR><FONT color=#0000ff>Q5. Don't you think the law provides, or can
provide, enough itself with the means of its own enforcement, so that it doesn't
need ICANN to take on the mission of a surrogate for law
enforcement?<BR></FONT>A: We are seeking to make the way we are now using
WHOIS compliant with law, not vice versa. </FONT></FONT><FONT face=Arial
size=2>Under EU data protection laws (and most other such laws) it is illegal to
use data for any purpose other than that for which it was originally collected.
So if we as ICANN say WHOIS data is only for purposes of connectivity, we are
saying it should never be used for reasons of consumer/user protection. At this
point we have to rely on the hundreds of diverse Registrar and reseller
contracts to get the wording right. I trust Ross's organisation. I trust my own
registrar. I don't trust all of them. That is to my mind a lack of due
diligence.</FONT></P>
<P><FONT face=Arial size=2>Philip</FONT></P>
<P><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </P>
<P><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </P></BODY></HTML>