<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:x="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:excel" xmlns:p="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:powerpoint" xmlns:a="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:access" xmlns:dt="uuid:C2F41010-65B3-11d1-A29F-00AA00C14882" xmlns:s="uuid:BDC6E3F0-6DA3-11d1-A2A3-00AA00C14882" xmlns:rs="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:rowset" xmlns:z="#RowsetSchema" xmlns:b="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:publisher" xmlns:ss="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:spreadsheet" xmlns:c="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:component:spreadsheet" xmlns:oa="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:activation" xmlns:html="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40" xmlns:q="http://schemas.xmlsoap.org/soap/envelope/" xmlns:D="DAV:" xmlns:x2="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/excel/2003/xml" xmlns:ois="http://schemas.microsoft.com/sharepoint/soap/ois/" xmlns:dir="http://schemas.microsoft.com/sharepoint/soap/directory/" xmlns:ds="http://www.w3.org/2000/09/xmldsig#" xmlns:dsp="http://schemas.microsoft.com/sharepoint/dsp" xmlns:udc="http://schemas.microsoft.com/data/udc" xmlns:xsd="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema" xmlns:sps="http://schemas.microsoft.com/sharepoint/soap/" xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance" xmlns:udcxf="http://schemas.microsoft.com/data/udc/xmlfile" xmlns:wf="http://schemas.microsoft.com/sharepoint/soap/workflow/" xmlns:mver="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/markup-compatibility/2006" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns:mrels="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/package/2006/relationships" xmlns:ex12t="http://schemas.microsoft.com/exchange/services/2006/types" xmlns:ex12m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/exchange/services/2006/messages" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40">
<head>
<meta http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=us-ascii">
<meta name=Generator content="Microsoft Word 12 (filtered medium)">
<style>
<!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math";
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:"Lucida Sans";
panose-1:2 11 6 2 3 5 4 2 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0cm;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";}
p.MsoBodyText, li.MsoBodyText, div.MsoBodyText
{mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:"Body Text Char";
mso-margin-top-alt:auto;
margin-right:0cm;
mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;
margin-left:0cm;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:purple;
text-decoration:underline;}
span.EmailStyle17
{mso-style-type:personal-compose;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:windowtext;}
span.BodyTextChar
{mso-style-name:"Body Text Char";
mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:"Body Text";
font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;}
@page Section1
{size:612.0pt 792.0pt;
margin:72.0pt 72.0pt 72.0pt 72.0pt;}
div.Section1
{page:Section1;}
-->
</style>
<!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]-->
</head>
<body lang=EN-GB link=blue vlink=purple>
<div class=Section1>
<p class=MsoBodyText style='mso-margin-top-alt:0cm;margin-right:0cm;margin-bottom:
12.0pt;margin-left:0cm'><span style='color:black'>Please find below the
statement on the vote on WHOIS at the Council meeting in LA for Ute Decker,
Kristina Rosette and Cyril Chua. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoBodyText style='mso-margin-top-alt:0cm;margin-right:0cm;margin-bottom:
12.0pt;margin-left:0cm'><span style='color:black'><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoBodyText style='mso-margin-top-alt:0cm;margin-right:0cm;margin-bottom:
12.0pt;margin-left:0cm'><span style='color:black'>Statement of Intellectual
Property Constituency representatives (for Board Report re Whois votes 31
October 2007) </span><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";
color:blue'><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoBodyText style='mso-margin-top-alt:0cm;margin-right:0cm;margin-bottom:
12.0pt;margin-left:0cm'><span style='color:black'> Section
12 of the GNSO Policy Development Process (Annex A to ICANN By-Laws) provides,
“A Supermajority Vote of the Council members will be deemed to reflect
the view of the Council, and may be conveyed to the Board as the Council's
recommendation.” Since the vote to defeat Motion #1 regarding
Whois, and to approve Motion #2, both qualify as Supermajority Votes under the
PDP (“a vote of more than sixty-six (66) percent of the members
present”), it does not appear that any further material is needed for the
Board Report on these Motions. Furthermore, the recommendation appearing
in Motion #3 was never the subject of a Policy Development Process, and thus a
Board Report does not appear to be required. However, because there was
no Supermajority Vote position on Motion #3, the IPC representatives to the
Council provide the following information on the issues identified in Section
11 of the PDP. We have provided this information with regard to all three
motions, in case the staff takes the view that it is appropriate to make a
Board Report on Motion #3, and to include within it the outcomes on issues
decided by Supermajority Votes, but without conceding that either view is
correct. </span><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";
color:blue'><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoBodyText style='mso-margin-top-alt:0cm;margin-right:0cm;margin-bottom:
12.0pt;margin-left:0cm'><u><span style='color:black'>Motion #1:</span></u><span
style='color:black'> IPC opposed this motion. The reasons for this
opposition, as well as our views on the impact of the proposal on our
constituency (item 11(b) of the PDP), are set out in the Constituency Statement
submitted on October 4, 2007 (see pages 26-28 of the Staff Overview document, </span><span
style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:blue'><a
href="http://www.gnso.icann.org/drafts/icann-staff-overview-of-whois11oct07.pdf"><span
style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";color:navy'>http://www.gnso.icann.org/drafts/icann-staff-overview-of-whois11oct07.pdf</span></a></span><span
style='color:black'>): </span><span style='font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:blue'><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoBodyText style='mso-margin-top-alt:0cm;margin-right:0cm;margin-bottom:
12.0pt;margin-left:0cm'><span style='color:black'>“In its January 2007
statement, the IPC identified several critical questions about the OPOC
proposal, in particular the roles and responsibilities of the new Operational
Point of Contact. It also stated at that time: “Since
the two proposals before the Task Force [OPOC and Special Circumstances] each
call for the elimination of public access to some data that is now publicly
available through the Whois service, the question of how to provide an
alternative mechanism through which those with a specific legitimate need can
obtain this data is crucial. As the representative of a group of
stakeholders who clearly have such a legitimate need, the IPC believes
that neither of these proposals (nor indeed any proposal that shares the
characteristic of removing any Whois data from public access) should be adopted
unless or until an efficient, reliable and speedy alternative mechanism for
such access is ready to be implemented.”</span><span style='font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:blue'><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoBodyText style='mso-margin-top-alt:0cm;margin-right:0cm;margin-bottom:
12.0pt;margin-left:0cm'><span style='color:black'> “The Working
Group formed by the GNSO Council after the Lisbon ICANN meeting was charged
with addressing questions which paralleled some of the concerns raised by the
IPC. IPC representatives participated actively in the Working Group. In
our view, some progress was made in defining the roles and responsibilities of
the OPOC. Much less progress was made on the crucial question of
developing the alternative access mechanism that is needed. In neither
area was general agreement achieved on answers to the questions posed by the
GNSO Council. </span><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";
color:blue'><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoBodyText style='mso-margin-top-alt:0cm;margin-right:0cm;margin-bottom:
12.0pt;margin-left:0cm'><span style='color:black'>“If Motion #1 were
adopted, IPC members would be adversely affected. Interposing an
“operational point of contact” between the Whois requester and the
registrant will generally make the process of contacting the registrant slower,
more difficult, more opaque and less reliable than it is today. The
benefits for all parties of quick contact and prompt resolution of a wide range
of disputes (including but not limited to those involving questions of
infringement of intellectual property rights) will be largely forfeited; more
cases will have to be resolved through more formal channels such as UDRP or
litigation; and expense and delay will increase for all concerned. A
particular concern is that no alternative mechanism exists (or is even
proposed) for obtaining more complete contact information on registrants in
case of a legitimate need which may be extremely pressing.”</span><span
style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:blue'><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoBodyText style='mso-margin-top-alt:0cm;margin-right:0cm;margin-bottom:
12.0pt;margin-left:0cm'><u><span style='color:black'> Motion #2</span></u><span
style='color:black'>: IPC representatives supported this motion.
The reasons for this support, and the anticipated impact on the constituency,
were spelled out in the October 4 constituency statement referenced
above. Although a number of wording changes were made to Motion #2 before
it was voted upon, mainly as the result of amendments proposed by Ross Rader,
Chuck Gomes and Robin Gross, and accepted by Kristina Rosette as the author of
Motion #2, we do not believe that its basic thrust was changed, and thus the
following statements in the Constituency Statement remain relevant:</span><span
style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:blue'><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoBodyText style='mso-margin-top-alt:0cm;margin-right:0cm;margin-bottom:
12.0pt;margin-left:0cm'><span style='color:black'>“If Motion #2 were
adopted, the impact on IPC members would probably be positive. In the long run,
development of a stronger factual basis for any policy changes regarding Whois
is likely to result in better decision-making. At a minimum, the practical
impacts of different policy alternatives would be better understood. </span><span
style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:blue'><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoBodyText style='mso-margin-top-alt:0cm;margin-right:0cm;margin-bottom:
12.0pt;margin-left:0cm'><span style='color:black'>“IPC supports Motion
#2. We agree that there is not ‘an adequate basis for any
implementation of the OPOC proposal,’ and that future policymaking in
this area would benefit greatly from ‘a comprehensive, objective study
… of key factual issues regarding the Whois system, which has never been
undertaken.’ The completion of such a study would provide a solid
basis for the next steps in Whois policy development.” </span><span
style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:blue'><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoBodyText style='mso-margin-top-alt:0cm;margin-right:0cm;margin-bottom:
12.0pt;margin-left:0cm'><span style='color:black'>Motion #3: IPC
representatives opposed this motion, primarily for the reasons stated, and
because of the impact anticipated, in the October 4 constituency statement: </span><span
style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:blue'><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoBodyText style='mso-margin-top-alt:0cm;margin-right:0cm;margin-bottom:
12.0pt;margin-left:0cm'><span style='color:black'>“If Motion #3 were
adopted, the impact on IPC members would be decidedly negative.
Their ability to contact registrants (for the many legitimate reasons spelled
out in many previous submissions) would become completely unpredictable, and
could vary wildly depending on the registry or registrar involved. It can
be envisioned that registries or registrars would exercise their unrestricted
control over registrant contact information by demanding extortionate prices
for this data and imposing other onerous terms and conditions. There is
also a risk that expensive and protracted litigation would ensue among
registrants, registrars, registries, and requesters (including IPC members)
over the various inconsistent policies that would be put into place. The
likelihood of direct intervention by one or more governments into the process
would increase significantly, in the absence of consistent self-regulatory
practices. In their role as domain name registrants, IPC members would
also face greater uncertainty about how their personal data would be handled by
registrars or registries. </span><span style='font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:blue'><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoBodyText style='mso-margin-top-alt:0cm;margin-right:0cm;margin-bottom:
12.0pt;margin-left:0cm'><span style='color:black'>IPC opposes Motion #3.
We disagree with the statement that the current Whois policies “cannot be
reasonably implemented or enforced,” and note that ICANN has repeatedly
committed to do just that. We oppose the “sunsetting” of the
Whois contractual provisions that have been in place, with minimal
modifications, throughout nearly all of ICANN’s history. We
believe that the current system can and should be improved, including through
policy changes that are based on a strong factual record about the uses and
abuses of Whois data. To simply discard the current system, and let each
ICANN registrar or registry follow its own wishes about access to, trafficking
in, or accuracy of registrant contact data, would risk serious damage to the
stability and security of the domain name system, and would not be in the best
interests of any current participant in that system, including but not limited
to the constituency IPC represents.”</span><span style='font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:blue'><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoBodyText style='mso-margin-top-alt:0cm;margin-right:0cm;margin-bottom:
12.0pt;margin-left:0cm'><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";
color:blue'><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Lucida Sans","sans-serif";
color:#595959'>Ute Decker | Director - Interoperability & Standards
- Microsoft EMEA <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Lucida Sans","sans-serif";
color:#595959'>| +447967262245| 100 Victoria St, London SW1E 5JL, UK <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
</body>
</html>