[council] BC proposal re WHOIS

[Mike Rodenbaugh]

Thanks Mawaki.  It will be good to hear what the NCUC proposes as next
steps.

Mike Rodenbaugh

-----Original Message-----
From: Mawaki Chango [mailto:ki_chango at yahoo.com] 
Sent: Thursday, August 30, 2007 5:02 AM
To: Mike Rodenbaugh; GNSO Council
Subject: RE: [council] BC proposal re WHOIS

And the NCUC certainly does not agree with this resolution
project:

1. It's surprising that there are people who still don't see
that there's a problem with the current Whois policy ("study 4,
and to the extent it reveals that there is a problem with the
current
Whois policy,...") This would be, I'm afraid, a waste of ICANN's
resources and brave people's time, once more.

2. There a fact: Whois policy is in conflict with national laws
(and even more than the number of them we hear about.) Then what
is that policy, meant to be global, where exceptions become a
routine?

3. What will be the terms of the cost/benefit analysis in order
to provide a comprehensive basis for evaluation? How are they
going to account for the political conundrum?

Mawaki

--- "Rosette, Kristina" <krosette at cov.com> wrote:

> The Intellectual Property Constituency agrees with and
> supports the
> proposed resolution from the Business Constituency.  
>  
> Kristina Rosette
>  
> 
> 
> ________________________________
> 
> 	From: owner-council at gnso.icann.org
> [mailto:owner-council at gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Mike
> Rodenbaugh
> 	Sent: Wednesday, August 29, 2007 11:13 AM
> 	To: GNSO Council
> 	Subject: [council] BC proposal re WHOIS
> 	
> 	
> 
> 	All,
> 
> 	 
> 
> 	The BC agrees with the WG that further study of WHOIS issues
> is
> warranted, however we believe the recommended studies should
> be
> conducted in phases so as to potentially conserve ICANN
> resources in the
> event that early studies show that later planned studies are
> not
> warranted or should be modified.
> 
> 	 
> 
> 	Here is a proposed resolution from the Business Constituency:
> 
> 	 
> 
> 	1.	The GNSO Council hereby accepts the WG report and
> acknowledges the tremendous effort by WG participants and
> ICANN staff.  
> 	2.	The GNSO Council particularly recognizes the WG chair
> for his adept leadership through a contentious and
> controversial WG
> process. 
> 	3.	The GNSO Council does not consider the WG report as an
> adequate basis for any implementation of OPOC. 
> 	4.	The GNSO Council requests that ICANN staff proceed with
> the 4 studies described in Section 8 of the WG report, as
> follows: 
> 
> 		1.	Proceed with study 4 on the characteristics of
> the Whois database first.  This study should include a review
> and
> analysis of the different proxy services.  
> 		2.	Following completion of study 4, and to the
> extent it reveals that there is a problem with the current
> Whois policy,
> ICANN Staff should proceed with study one - the cost/benefit
> analysis.
> Completion of study 4 should help determine the parameters of
> the
> cost/benefit analysis, since the scope of the problem will be
> known and
> documented. 
> 		3.	To the extent that the cost/benefit analysis
> determines that the benefits of changing the Whois policy
> exceed the
> costs, ICANN Staff should proceed with a third study that
> merges study
> two on self-certification (this should include an analysis of
> an ex post
> facto review mechanism) and study 3 on authentication (which
> should
> include authentication of any parties with a legitimate
> interest in the
> data). 
> 
> 	 
> 
> 	Thanks.
> 
> 	 
> 
> 	Mike Rodenbaugh
> 
> 	Officer, Business and Commercial Users Constituency
> 
>