RE: [council] Proposed amendment to BCUC motion

["Mike Rodenbaugh" <mxr@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Ross, you cannot honestly call this a 'proposed amendment' to our
motion.  It has nothing to do with our motion.

You are proposing that ICANN remove all existing contractual provisions
regarding WHOIS, on the basis that a consensus WHOIS policy has not been
achieved to date.  That is the first time I have ever heard someone
suggest that lack of consensus as to policy to change the status quo,
would lead to elimination of the status quo -- and thus in this matter,
elimination of an open and accessible WHOIS database.  I am quite
surprised to read such a proposal for the first time today, and
surprised that you did not even mention it for discussion on our GNSO
call today, nor in the past 7 years of debate as far as I know.  

I recall you stating at our GNSO Council meeting that kicked off this
WG, that you would see lack of consensus as meaning we carry on with the
status quo.  Apparently your statements were disingenuous or your
thinking has changed dramatically since.  It now seems clear that your
long and hard battling on this issue has been designed to eliminate ANY
cost or obligation among registrars re WHOIS, rather than to mitigate
any 'increased' cost above the status quo, as you have so frequently
argued.    

These contractual provisions have existed for a very long time, for very
good reasons, and should not be considered for potential elimination
without a PDP designed to analyze that potential outcome.  As far as I
know, it simply has never been proposed or discussed that we would
eliminate WHOIS altogether, so it would be ridiculous for Council to
consider that as an option now.

Mike Rodenbaugh

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
On Behalf Of Ross Rader
Sent: Thursday, August 30, 2007 8:20 AM
To: Council GNSO
Subject: [council] Proposed amendment to BCUC motion

I am not sure if this made it to the list or not, but this was intended 
to serve as an amendment to the proposed BCUC motion;

Whereas;

1.    The GNSO Council accepts the WG report and appreciates the efforts

made by WG participants and ICANN staff in preparing this report.
2.    The GNSO Council does not consider the WG report as sufficiently 
demonstrating consensus or agreement on substantive policy proposals.
3.    The GNSO Council considers that the lack of consensus demonstrated

through this open and inclusive working group is representative of the 
lack of agreement on key issues in this area of policy.
4.    The GNSO Council recognizes that there is no standing consensus 
policy concerning the management of the Whois service and data provided 
to the public through that service by ICANN's contracted commercial 
operators, the registries and registrars. save and except the Whois Data

Reminder Policy and the Whois Marketing Restriction Policy.

Therefore;

Be it resolved;

a) that the GNSO Council concludes the current PDP on Whois.
b) graciously thanks all of the volunteers, consultants, staff and 
others who have participated in the GNSO's examination of Whois policy 
over the last four years.
c) that the GNSO Council makes no specific policy recommendation to the 
ICANN board at this time concerning Whois or related policy.
d) that the GNSO Council recommends to the ICANN staff and Board of 
Directors that due to the lack of consensus on issues in this area that 
current contractual requirements concerning Whois for registries, 
registrars and registrants that are not supported by consensus policy be

eliminated from the current operating agreements between ICANN and its 
contracted parties until such time that consensus policy in this area 
has been developed.



-- 
Regards,

Ross Rader
Director, Retail Services
Tucows Inc.

http://www.domaindirect.com
t. 416.538.5492