Re: [council] Draft Charter for new Whois Working Group
Per my earlier message, the proposed SOW is somewhat incongruent with the motion we passed at Council. I agree that completely revisiting the motion is probably not our best option, but we should at least seek to ensure that the SOW is consistent with the motion, which I don't believe is the case right now.
On 11-Apr-07, at 4:32 PM, Gomes, Chuck wrote:
I think we also have to be careful about undoing the extensive work that was done 'live' in Lisbon in crafting the motion. We spent the majority of our time in the Council meeting in Lisbon on this one issue and even worked through what was supposed to be a lunch break. If we restart theprocess of amending the motion over again I am fearful that we willagain spend the majority of our meeting time trading amendments withoutmoving the process forward. I doubt very seriously that there is any possibility of writing the motion so that it perfectly satisfies everyone but the important thing is make it clear enough thatconstructive work can proceed in a timely fashion. I agree that the SoWneeds to be reasonably bounded but I would oppose making it so restrictive that creative thinking was limited that might result in totally new approaches not yet considered. It's not as if strong consensus was reached by the working group so there seems to be plentyof room for collaborative work if all sides are willing to commit to it.I would suggest that we limit the time we spend discussing andconsidering amendments; if quick consensus can be reached, fine; if not, then it might be best to accept the motion as drafted in Lisbon and workon forming the group, identifying a chair, finalizing the procedural guidelines, etc. Chuck Gomes "This message is intended for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain information that is privileged, confidential and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. Anyunauthorized use, distribution, or disclosure is strictly prohibited. Ifyou have received this message in error, please notify sender immediately and destroy/delete the original transmission."-----Original Message----- From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Robin Gross Sent: Wednesday, April 11, 2007 2:50 PM To: Maria Farrell; 'Council GNSO' Subject: Re: [council] Draft Charter for new Whois Working Group NCUC amends this motion to include one additional point of clarification that is necessary to keep this working group focused. The objective proposed in the draft charter is badly worded because it would allow for each and every recommendation of the previous whois task force to be revisited ("examine the issues raised with respect to the policy recommendation of the task force and make recommendations concerning how those policies may be improved...). This new working group is not meant to "undo" the three years of work on the whois task force. Therefore it is important that we keep this new working group on track by more clearly stating the objective. NCUC proposes to amend the basic objective [new words in CAPS] as follows: "The objective of the working group is to examine the IMPLEMENTATION issues raised BY the recommendED OPOC PROPOSAL of the task force, and make recommendations concerning how THE OPOC PROPOSAL may be IMPLEMENTED IN A WAY TO ADDRESS THOSE ISSUES." Thank you, Robin Robin Gross wrote:In considering this WG charter April 12, NCUC moves to amend it as follows: Under section 4b, Change the sentence "Determine how thirdparties mayaccess registration data that is no longer available forunrestrictedpublic query-based access for legitimate activities." to... Determine which third parties, under which conditions, may access registration data that is no longer available forunrestricted publicquery-based access." Also, strike the 8 paragraphs beginning "The GAC policy principles...." Reason: The opening sentence of 4b reads as if ANY third party willbe givenaccess to the data for any activity. But this begs thepolicy questionthat the WG must answer, which is WHICH third parties(e.g., just lawenforcement agencies, or others) and under WHAT CONDITIONS. As for the second change, having discussed this with GACmembers, theobjections of the EU to the language was resolved bystating that someof the ACTIVITIES that Whois data was used for was legitimate, but this did not necessarily mean that ACCESS TO THE PRIVATEDATA was alsolegitimate. Also, the Whois task force has alreadydetermined that thepurpose of Whois does not include many of these activities,so thereis no obligation on ICANN to make the data available forthose activities.Thank you, Robin Ross Rader wrote:Maria - Many thanks for turning this around so quickly. The draft is generally great. I'd like to suggest that the sectionentitled "workplan" uses the relevant text of the resolution instead of the language currently employed. In a couple of places, the work plan outlines a much greater scope of work than thatcontemplated by theresolutions, specifically; 4.a proposed expands the examination of the definition ofthe rolesto all contacts, whereas the resolution only sought to examine the definition of the operational point of contact. 4.b proposed requests the WG to determine how third parties may access unpublished data for legitimate activities, whereas the resolution only seeks to describe how legitimate interests will access unpublished data. The difference seems small, butthe proposedlanguage requests the creation of a comprehensive proposal that describes an access mechanism for a long list of "legitimate activities" rather than a proposal that describes anaccess mechanismfor use by legitimate interests. 4.c proposed additionally requests the WG to determine how the distinctions should be made whereas the Council resolution only sought to discover if the distinctions in question werepossible tomake. In each of these cases, it might just make the most senseto rely onthe text of the original resolution as ratified by Councilto ensurethat we don't lose clarity on our actual objectives. Second, a question. Concerning the issue of definingagreement. Whenit comes to understanding what constitutes "broad agreement", will this be measured on the views shared by individuals orinterest groups?Finally, in order to ensure that we're all working from the same foundation, it might make sense to specifically include the policy recommendations of the task force in the document itself,either as asummary, or an annex that we can easily refer to. The policy recommendations that I am referring to are included insection 4 ofthe report, as per the clarifications I made during our discuss at the recent Council meeting. Thanks again, -ross On 30-Mar-07, at 2:51 PM, Maria Farrell wrote:Dear Council members, Attached is the draft Charter that sets out the statement of work and working methodologies of the Whois Working Group, created by resolution of the GNSO Council in Lisbon, on 28 March. Please review it and note that it will be an agenda item for discussion and adoption at the next Council meeting on 12 April. Also, please email this list if you wish to be on theWorking Group,and feel free to to put any interested constituency members or outside experts in touch with me for further information. All the best, Maria <Whois Working Group Charter2.doc>Ross Rader Director, Retail Services t. 416.538.5492 c. 416.828.8783 http://www.domaindirect.com "To solve the problems of today, we must focus on tomorrow." - Erik Nupponen
Ross Rader Director, Retail Services t. 416.538.5492 c. 416.828.8783 http://www.domaindirect.com "To solve the problems of today, we must focus on tomorrow." - Erik Nupponen