[council] Reply from American Intellectual Property Law Association

[Bruce Tonkin]

Hello All,

I received a reply from Michael Kirk on behalf of the  American
Intellectual Property Law Association, which was copied to the chair of
the ICANN Board, and the chair of the GAC.  Mr Kirk attached a document
in Microsoft Word format, but I have put it in plain text format below.

Regards,
Bruce Tonkin


========================================================================
==================

Dear Mr. Tonkin,


Thank you for your observations regarding the comments of the American
Intellectual Property Law Association on the GNSO Council vote on the
Formulation 1 definition of the purpose of the WHOIS service. Please
find attached our reply to your observations.


Regards,
Mike Kirk

========================================================================
==================

	
June 21, 2006
Mr. Bruce Tonkin
Chair, GNSO Council

				    
Dear Mr. Tonkin,

	Thank you for your reply to the comments submitted by the
American Intellectual Property Law Association regarding the GNSO
Council vote favoring the Formulation 1 definition of the purpose of the
WHOIS service and for your reassurances about the "aims of the GNSO." We
understand that no final decisions have been made, however, we must
respectfully say that we are perplexed by your statements that you
"don't understand how the letter relates to formulations 1 or 2" and
that "members of the community have made pre-mature judgements on the
eventual outcomes of the WHOIS work."

	In the Final task force report on the purpose of WHOIS and of
the WHOIS contacts dated March 15, 2006, it is stated that "Task 1 of
the task force terms of reference requires the WHOIS Task Force to
define the purpose of WHOIS. Defining the purpose is important as it
will guide work on the other work items in the terms of reference.
[BEGIN emphasis] The purpose of WHOIS - when defined - will have a
significant impact in determining the operation of WHOIS." [END
emphasis]

	Looking at the two formulations,

Formulation 1:
 
"The purpose of the gTLD WHOIS service is to provide information
sufficient to contact a responsible party for a particular gTLD domain
name who can resolve, or reliably pass on data to a party who can
resolve, issues related to the configuration of the records associated
with the domain name within a DNS nameserver."
 
Formulation 2:
 
"The purpose of the WHOIS service is to provide information sufficient
to contact a responsible party or parties for a particular gTLD domain
name who can resolve, or reliably pass on data to a party who can
resolve, technical, legal or other issues related to the registration or
use of a domain name."

We simply cannot see how using the narrower definition of WHOIS in
Formulation 1 will not affect the outcome, or "have a significant impact
in determining the operation of WHOIS" as stated in the final task force
report. The future work of the task force, if it follows Formulation 1,
will focus on providing information "...sufficient to...reliably pass on
data [for resolving]... issues related to the configuration of the
records associated with the domain name within a DNS nameserver." This
is considerably narrower and more limited than the Formulation 2
definition "...to provide information sufficient to...pass on data...to
resolve, technical, legal or other issues related to the registration or
use of a domain name."  

While it is technically correct to state as you do that "that there are
no changes in collected data, nor in the requirement for that data to be
accurate," basing the further work of the task force on the narrow
definition of the purpose of WHOIS in Formulation 1 will almost
inevitably lead to recommendations that the data collected and the
access provided to that data be more limited than is currently the case.


AIPLA therefore maintains its request that the GNSO adopt a definition
meeting the needs of all Internet users and that the ICANN Board closely
monitor the policy development process, bearing in mind the importance
of preserving the existing requirements to make up-to-date and accurate
WHOIS information available to all who have a legitimate need to obtain
such information.

Thank you for consideration of the views of AIPLA.
 

Sincerely

	

Michael Kirk
	

Executive Director