[council] Progressing Council's responsibility for defining WHOIS - Purpose for which data is collected

[Marilyn Cade]

I recommend that the TF continue its work.  

I agree that we haven't had a chance [I wasn't here Monday and Tuesday] to
have the total immersion either or to fully consider the latest input
/clarification of the registrar statement.  

Perhaps I've gotten my feet wet, however. :-) I was here for the WHOIS TF
meeting on Sunday.     

However, the Council should take up the discussion of purpose at the Council
level, with participation and advice of the GAC Sub Committee;
representatives from the ccNSO, the ASO, the chair of the SSAC, and ensure
input from the community during this discussion. 

I think Council must recognize and be sensitive to the political realities
of the interests of the GAC that the purpose definition must include
dialogue, advice and interaction with governments; it is the view of many if
not all governmental representatives that I've spoken to that the purpose of
WHOIS is a "public policy" issue. 

This would create a parallel track to some degree, hopefully briefly. I
understand that. 

However, I am sensitive to the concerns expressed both within ICANN, and
outside of ICANN, by governments, that when public policy issues are
discussed, there must be interaction and advice of governments. In this
case, the "governments" are the GAC, and specifically the GAC subcommittee
of relevance. 

I support establishing that interaction.  As we all understand in policy
making "facts are our friends" in policy development; "making policy is like
making sausage", and policy making takes time.  Some may think that policy
should be rushed. We should learn lessons for how related "standards" and
policy is made elsewhere, including in the IETF. 

NOT stopping our work, nor the work of the TF, but being responsible and
recognizing the need to discuss NOW the purpose for which the data is
collected. At the Council. While the TF does relevant work, taking into
account the inputs that have been recently received.

I think there is a misunderstanding about the risks here. I spoke to my
views on that related to how some of the confusion and breakdown took place
on the dialogue of the issues related to the decision on .XXX.

Some believe that the GNSO TF can design an "engineering" model, publish it,
send it to the Board, there is a strong risk that they reject it due to
advice from the GAC that we have not accepted their request to interact with
us on the purpose for which the data is collected, as well as what should be
displayed and to whom. Then, let's say that we find that the policy
recommendation is rejected, we have to go back to the drawing board--and to
those who are frustrated about work load, how long policy development takes,
I would note that this would only elongate the process even more... and
frustrate even more.  




Best regards, Marilyn

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-council at gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council at gnso.icann.org] On
Behalf Of Ross Rader
Sent: Tuesday, June 27, 2006 3:22 PM
To: Bruce Tonkin
Cc: Council GNSO
Subject: Re: [council] Options for WHOIS purpose

Bruce Tonkin wrote:
 > Lets discuss this further in the Council meeting tomorrow.
 >
 > In any case, I recommend that the task force continue its current work
 > program.  Any work on purpose should be done at the Council level.

It sounds like much discussion and progress has been made on Whois this 
week.

This is a good thing.

However, I would ask that we don't seek to actually take a decision on 
this matter tomorrow. Those that are physically participating in the 
meeting have had the benefit of a very immersive experience in which 
they have been able to take in a lot of data on a very near full-time 
basis. Those of us not attending the meeting have not had this same 
luxury. I would like to be able to participate in taking this decision 
from an informed basis, but have not yet had a chance to wade through 
the relevant recordings, transcripts and submissions.

Discussion of this proposal is definitely warranted, but I don't think I 
could adequately represent the needs of my constituency, in terms of 
making a decision, based on what I know now. I would appreciate the 
opportunity to consider more of these inputs before I actually voted on 
anything this important during a meeting that will be held in just over 
12 hours time.

Thanks in advance for your consideration.

-ross