[council] Proposed motion on WHOIS

Robin Gross robin at ipjustice.org
Wed Jun 28 15:26:59 UTC 2006

I must add my voice to this suggestion by Ross and Norbert.

As someone who woke up at 3am today to be in the GNSO call, but was not 
able to hear the discussion to participate in it, I feel at a real 
disadvantage in understanding what is happening in Marrakesh. 

It seems like those who were unhappy with the outcome of the whois vote 
are now trying to undo the vote.  This seems quite irregular and 


Norbert Klein wrote:

> Dear Council,
> Dear Bruce,
> I would like to add my voice to the suggestion by Ross. Though I was 
> in Marrakesh for the time of Saturday to Monday and am aware of the 
> many statements which came and come in, I think your proposal is 
> introducing new procedures ("Each Council member that voted in favour 
> of the definition will provide a brief explanation of the reason for 
> supporting the resolution and their understanding of its meaning") 
> which are totally absent from any normal democratic election procedure 
> I know. I consider this as an attempt to abolish or at least to 
> discredit an validly achieved decision by the council.
> I am not against normal Council procedures to clarify, if anything has 
> to be clarified - e.g. the wrong interpretations that the decision 
> taken (I am not speaking any longer about formula 1 or 2, but only 
> about the decision we took) would exclude the possibility of law 
> enforcement agencies to act, according to existing valid laws.
> If the laws are considered by somebody to be not sufficient, it is a 
> question for the legislative bodies of involved countries to act - it 
> is not a question for the Council, or for GAC, to do something 
> similar, as if we would have the authority to handle legislation.
> Norbert
> =
> Ross Rader wrote:
>> I'd note that there is a 15 minute delay between the sending of this 
>> motion and the receipt of it. Coupled with the telephonic 
>> difficulties, I have been completely unable to follow this discussion.
>> As previously requested, I'd like to reiterate my request to take no 
>> action on this question until we've all had time to consider the 
>> inputs and potential implications.
>> Bruce Tonkin wrote:
>>> Proposed Motion
>>> In response to the extensive community and Government input on the
>>> definition of the purpose of WHOIS, the GNSO Council agrees to 
>>> undertake
>>> the following steps:
>>> One:  Each Council member that voted in favour of the definition will
>>> provide a brief explanation of the reason for supporting the resolution
>>> and their understanding of its meaning.
>>> Two: the ICANN staff will provide a summary of the other 
>>> interpretations
>>> of the definition that have been expressed by the community and
>>> Governments.
>>> Three: the Council will undertake a dialogue with the GAC and SSAC on
>>> developing a broadly understandable definition of the purposes for 
>>> which
>>> the current data required in the RRA is collected.
>>> Four: The GNSO Council requests that the WHOIS task force continue with
>>> their work as specified in the terms of reference taking into account
>>> the recent input that has been provided.
>>> Five: The GNSO Council will take the final report from the WHOIS task
>>> force that addresses all terms of reference, and the definition of
>>> purpose of collecting data derived from the dialogue with the GAC and
>>> SSAC, and consider improving the wording of the WHOIS service 
>>> definition
>>> so that it is broadly understandable.
>>> The GNSO Council notes that the current definition is related to the
>>> service that provides public access to some or all of the data
>>> collected, and is not a definition of the purpose of the data itself.
>> Regards,

More information about the council mailing list