<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 3.2//EN">
<HTML>
<HEAD>
<TITLE>RE: [council] Proposed amendment to BCUC motion</TITLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY>
<!-- Converted from text/plain format -->
<P><FONT SIZE=2>Thanks Mike. That helps me understand what you meant. Working for a thin registry, I don't see any financial advantages for us.<BR>
<BR>
Chuck<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
Sent from my GoodLink Wireless Handheld (www.good.com)<BR>
<BR>
-----Original Message-----<BR>
From: Mike Rodenbaugh [<A HREF="mailto:mxr@yahoo-inc.com">mailto:mxr@yahoo-inc.com</A>]<BR>
Sent: Thursday, August 30, 2007 09:05 PM Eastern Standard Time<BR>
To: Gomes, Chuck; ross@tucows.com<BR>
Cc: Council GNSO<BR>
Subject: RE: [council] Proposed amendment to BCUC motion<BR>
<BR>
I understand that in the absence of any contractual provisions re an<BR>
open and accessible WHOIS database, registries and registrars would<BR>
completely control that data with no restrictions other than national<BR>
law. Control of WHOIS data equals financial benefit.<BR>
<BR>
Maybe I am misunderstanding something, please enlighten me if so. <BR>
<BR>
Ross please should be precise ASAP about the contract provisions he<BR>
proposes Council to suggest be eliminated. And please advise when and<BR>
where this outcome was ever discussed in an ICANN public forum. <BR>
<BR>
Otherwise I think it is inappropriate for us to consider this motion,<BR>
since the presented solution -- to a very important and long debated<BR>
issue -- has not been debated substantially by the wider community,<BR>
including several Working Groups designed to discuss the issues. To<BR>
consider such a solution at Council would discredit the premise that<BR>
ICANN is a bottom-up organization focused on consensus-based<BR>
policymaking. <BR>
<BR>
We should focus on the incremental consensus that has been reached, and<BR>
next steps to an implementable Consensus Policy.<BR>
<BR>
Mike Rodenbaugh<BR>
<BR>
-----Original Message-----<BR>
From: Gomes, Chuck [<A HREF="mailto:cgomes@verisign.com">mailto:cgomes@verisign.com</A>]<BR>
Sent: Thursday, August 30, 2007 5:20 PM<BR>
To: Mike Rodenbaugh; ross@tucows.com<BR>
Cc: Council GNSO<BR>
Subject: RE: [council] Proposed amendment to BCUC motion<BR>
<BR>
Mike,<BR>
<BR>
To what are you referring when you say, "your proposal is also of<BR>
financial benefit to Registries"?<BR>
<BR>
Chuck Gomes<BR>
<BR>
"This message is intended for the use of the individual or entity to<BR>
which it is addressed, and may contain information that is privileged,<BR>
confidential and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. Any<BR>
unauthorized use, distribution, or disclosure is strictly prohibited. If<BR>
you have received this message in error, please notify sender<BR>
immediately and destroy/delete the original transmission."<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
> -----Original Message-----<BR>
> From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org<BR>
> [<A HREF="mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org">mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org</A>] On Behalf Of Mike Rodenbaugh<BR>
> Sent: Thursday, August 30, 2007 1:34 PM<BR>
> To: ross@tucows.com<BR>
> Cc: Council GNSO<BR>
> Subject: RE: [council] Proposed amendment to BCUC motion<BR>
><BR>
> What else do the Registrars not like in their contracts? <BR>
> Maybe you could propose a PDP to examine them for awhile, obstruct and<BR>
<BR>
> obfuscate the process so that there is no consensus as to continued<BR>
> viability of those provisions, and so argue that they too should be<BR>
> removed. If you are successful with this on WHOIS, what will be next?<BR>
><BR>
> Of course, your proposal is also of financial benefit to Registries,<BR>
> and satisfies the NCUC completely. So it is surprising they have<BR>
> never to date advocated it, but will not be surprising if they agree<BR>
> with it now.<BR>
> I cannot imagine the other three Constituencies supporting it. So we<BR>
> will have a deeply divided Council on this issue, obviously.<BR>
><BR>
> So the answer then ought to be to work and discuss further to try to<BR>
> reach consensus. The WG found consensus on several fundamental<BR>
> points, even as to a general OPoC policy that was not supported by 3<BR>
> Constituencies. The WG also several factual points of contention<BR>
> that, if resolved, could lead to consensus policy. We should not<BR>
> throw away all the work that has gone into this, and decide on a<BR>
> radical solution that has never previously been proposed or discussed.<BR>
><BR>
> The existing contractual provisions are certainly not 'unsupported'<BR>
> and obviously were the product of consensus among not only the<BR>
> contracting parties but also the rest of the community. Everyone or<BR>
> at least 'almost everyone' should agree on any change to that status<BR>
> quo, including of course any proposal to eliminate it.<BR>
><BR>
> Mike Rodenbaugh<BR>
><BR>
><BR>
> -----Original Message-----<BR>
> From: Ross Rader [<A HREF="mailto:ross@tucows.com">mailto:ross@tucows.com</A>]<BR>
> Sent: Thursday, August 30, 2007 10:11 AM<BR>
> To: Mike Rodenbaugh<BR>
> Cc: Council GNSO<BR>
> Subject: Re: [council] Proposed amendment to BCUC motion<BR>
><BR>
> Mike Rodenbaugh wrote:<BR>
> > Ross, you cannot honestly call this a 'proposed amendment'<BR>
> to our > motion. It has nothing to do with our motion.<BR>
><BR>
> Shall I assume then that you don't view this as a friendly amendment?<BR>
><BR>
> > You are proposing that ICANN remove all existing contractual<BR>
> provisions<BR>
> > regarding WHOIS, on the basis that a consensus WHOIS policy has not<BR>
> been<BR>
> > achieved to date. That is the first time I have ever heard someone<BR>
> > suggest that lack of consensus as to policy to change the<BR>
> status quo,<BR>
> > would lead to elimination of the status quo -- and thus in this<BR>
> matter,<BR>
> > elimination of an open and accessible WHOIS database. I am quite<BR>
> > surprised to read such a proposal for the first time today, and<BR>
> > surprised that you did not even mention it for discussion<BR>
> on our GNSO<BR>
> > call today, nor in the past 7 years of debate as far as I know.<BR>
><BR>
> In reviewing this proposal today, I said that the matter before<BR>
> council is to test consensus on the issue of Whois policy. I was very<BR>
> clear about this when I reviewed this motion on the call today. If<BR>
> council conducts this test and cannot find consensus, how does it<BR>
> stand that the<BR>
><BR>
> status quo should be the default position? This might benefit your<BR>
> constituency, so I find your reaction understandable, but I don't<BR>
> understand your reasoning that a lack of consensus concerning whois<BR>
> policy means that the unsupported, non-consensus based contractual<BR>
> conditions should continue to prevail.<BR>
><BR>
> And for what its worth, I am not the first to advance this reasoning,<BR>
> although I do believe that it is a proper way to proceed in the event<BR>
> that there is no consensus regarding how Whois should be managed and<BR>
> maintained.<BR>
><BR>
> ><BR>
> > I recall you stating at our GNSO Council meeting that<BR>
> kicked off this<BR>
> > WG, that you would see lack of consensus as meaning we carry on with<BR>
> the<BR>
> > status quo. Apparently your statements were disingenuous or your<BR>
> > thinking has changed dramatically since.<BR>
><BR>
> My thinking has changed, yes. My apologies for taking a less than<BR>
> dogmatic approach.<BR>
><BR>
> > It now seems clear that your<BR>
> > long and hard battling on this issue has been designed to eliminate<BR>
> ANY<BR>
> > cost or obligation among registrars re WHOIS, rather than<BR>
> to mitigate<BR>
> > any 'increased' cost above the status quo, as you have so frequently<BR>
> > argued. <BR>
><BR>
> Actually both characterizations are incorrect. My policy object has<BR>
> always been to improve the privacy of individuals as it relates to<BR>
> Whois<BR>
><BR>
> such that my organization can reasonably defend its business practice<BR>
> to<BR>
><BR>
> its customers in a meaningful way consistent with Canadian law. There<BR>
> was also a time when I thought that supposed industry leaders might<BR>
> take<BR>
><BR>
> a similarly enlightened view. Too bad that protecting your trademarks<BR>
> in<BR>
><BR>
> 14 languages has to take precedent over making the internet a slightly<BR>
<BR>
> better place, although I understand why a large publicly traded<BR>
> company might get its priorities mixed up once in a while.<BR>
><BR>
> ><BR>
> > These contractual provisions have existed for a very long time, for<BR>
> very<BR>
> > good reasons, and should not be considered for potential elimination<BR>
<BR>
> > without a PDP designed to analyze that potential outcome.<BR>
> As far as I<BR>
> > know, it simply has never been proposed or discussed that we would<BR>
> > eliminate WHOIS altogether, so it would be ridiculous for Council to<BR>
<BR>
> > consider that as an option now.<BR>
><BR>
> PDP stands for Policy Development Process. If you'd like to propose<BR>
> that<BR>
><BR>
> Council undertake a study to understand the implications of enacting,<BR>
> or<BR>
><BR>
> redacting a policy, your proposal might make some sense. In the<BR>
> meantime, I've made a proposal that council support the elimination of<BR>
<BR>
> contractual terms for registrars on the basis that there is no<BR>
> consensus<BR>
><BR>
> policy to support these terms, nor any basis for consensus to be<BR>
> achieved in this area. It also leaves the door open such that if<BR>
> consensus policy on Whois services is developed in the future, than<BR>
> these consensus policies would be implemented just like any other<BR>
> consensus policy (i.e. Transfers, Data Reminder Policy, etc.)<BR>
><BR>
> --<BR>
> Regards,<BR>
><BR>
> Ross Rader<BR>
> Director, Retail Services<BR>
> Tucows Inc.<BR>
><BR>
> <A HREF="http://www.domaindirect.com">http://www.domaindirect.com</A><BR>
> t. 416.538.5492<BR>
><BR>
><BR>
</FONT>
</P>
</BODY>
</HTML>