[registrars] Re: [gnso-dow123] Registrar Constituency position and representatives comments on Preliminary Whois Report
GNSO.SECRETARIAT@GNSO.ICANN.ORG
gnso.secretariat at gnso.icann.org
Tue Jan 16 14:33:54 UTC 2007
Thank you very much Ross, the Registrar constituency statement has been
received and noted.
Best wishes
Glen
Ross Rader a écrit :
> Glen/Maria -
>
> Please accept the following statement from the registrar constituency
> and its representatives to this TF. Section 1) was adopted by a majority
> vote of the constituency in January, 2006 and formally discussed,
> reinforced and evolved at each meeting of the constituency since (New
> Zealand, Morocco, Miami and Sao Paolo). This is in addition to ongoing
> dialogue about the work of the TF and the constituency position on the
> registrar constituency mailing list. The commentary included is provided
> in support of this formal position and includes feedback and commentary
> from various constituency participants.
>
> 1) Formal Position of the Registrar Constituency (ratified)
> (i) The GNSO Registrar Constituency continues to support the Operation
> Point of Contact proposal discussed in the preliminary task force report.
>
> 2) Formal Feedback of the Constituency on the TF process, proposals and
> report
> (i) The OPOC proposal represents a variety of compromises between a
> number of potentially competing interests and strikes a balance between
> the requirements of network operators, business interests, trademark and
> intellectual property holders and registration interests. (ii) We urge
> the task force to complete its work prior to the upcoming meetings in
> Lisbon, Portugal and to focus on its consideration of access to data to
> ensure that the proposed policies can be properly implemented by users
> and providers; specifically, network providers, law enforcement
> interests, registration interests and those seeking to protect their
> intellectual property rights. (iii) Without due consideration of access
> to data, including the important questions of "Who?" and "On what
> terms?" the task force cannot consider their work adequate or complete.
>
> 3) Commentary
> Unlike the last minute Business Constituency and Intellectual Property
> Constituency proposals ("A Pragmatic Approach" and "Special
> Circumstances" proposals respectively) the Operational Point of Contact
> proposal does not advocate the irresponsible discontinuation of any
> aspect of the Whois service. Abolishing aspects of the service, or
> replacing it entirely, will undermine the stability and security of the
> internet's domain name system. Neither of these proposals are
> technically, socially or economically practical and both only serve the
> narrowest of interests within the business community.
>
> Despite the mischaracterizations that came with the handwringing and
> scare tactics of the IPC, BCUC and ISPC, the Operational Point of
> Contact proposal provides for very small improvement to the Whois system
> without fundamentally altering its structure or operation. This
> iterative improvement allows registrants a modicum of privacy without
> affecting *in any way* the amount of data that is available for
> legitimate investigative purposes. This stands in stark contrast to the
> position of the intellectual property lobby, in the guise of the IPC,
> ISPC and BCUC, which proposes to replace the entire existing whois
> system with a centrally administered registration database operated by
> an unaccountable entity according to policies specifically designed to
> circumvent national law on a global scale.
>
> The policy development process is necessarily participative,
> consultative and consensus driven. It is also prone to abuse and gaming,
> as is evidenced by the tactics of those participants who have turned
> their back on the current set of compromises by tabling their own
> private proposals - proposals which may or may not even have the
> endorsement of the interests they purport to represent. Reaction to this
> type of disingenuous participation will always be swift and predictable.
> In this case, compromises were fractured, perhaps irrevocably, as
> additional proposals were crafted as a defensive measure against the
> abandonment of the set of agreeements that the task force participants
> had been working with. This type of bad faith participation undermines
> the foundation and integrity of the GNSO's processes and structure. It
> may warrant specific examination during ICANN's Board review of the
> GNSO. The GNSO cannot be allowed continue to function in a manner that
> permits narrow constituencies to push their own self-interested agenda
> at the expense of all other stakeholders, especially given the duplicity
> and overlap of the composition of the intellectual property, internet
> service provider and business users constituencies. Large business
> interests must be consolidated into one constituency and arrangements
> made to allow unrepresented interests to participate in the work of the
> GNSO.
>
> Finally, the importance of defining which parties shall continue to have
> access to Whois data pursuant to any policies adopted by ICANN cannot be
> forgotten. All parties with a legitimate need for access to registration
> data must continue to have access to this data. Attention must be paid
> to facilitate the needs of registration (registrants, registrars and
> registries) and law enforcement interests and the means by which they
> access the data they require.
>
--
Glen de Saint Géry
GNSO Secretariat - ICANN
gnso.secretariat[at]gnso.icann.org
http://gnso.icann.org
More information about the registrars
mailing list