Re: [council] Proposed amendment to BCUC motion

[Ross Rader <ross@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Mike Rodenbaugh wrote:

> Ross please should be precise ASAP about the contract provisions he
> proposes Council to suggest be eliminated.  
Council does not typically deal with the level of detail that you 
propose Mike. In this case, I would foresee that if this motion is 
successful that staff would prepare an information brief consisting of 
this and other data that would facilitate the implementation of the motion.
> And please advise when and
> where this outcome was ever discussed in an ICANN public forum.

I am not exactly certain of the genesis of the proposal, but it is the 
subject of a paper authored by Avri and similar to an idea circulated 
through the GA by Danny Younger. I am certain you could find more 
information on the notion by reviewing the transcripts of the relevant 
meetings over the last year or so.
> Otherwise I think it is inappropriate for us to consider this motion,
> since the presented solution -- to a very important and long debated
> issue -- has not been debated substantially by the wider community,
> including several Working Groups designed to discuss the issues.  To
> consider such a solution at Council would discredit the premise that
> ICANN is a bottom-up organization focused on consensus-based
> policymaking.  
Again, I think you are confused about my proposal. Nothing I propose 
threatens ICANN's legitimacy as a consensus-based, bottom-up policy 
making organization. In fact, I believe my proposal furthers its 
legitimacy in this area. Specifically, my proposal deals with a series 
of requirements that are in fact *not* ICANN policy, yet we proceed with 
this status quo as if it has the support of the community simply because 
"this is the way its always been". My proposals recognizes this fact and 
allows us the opportunity to clear the way for real consensus based 
policy by eliminating the arbitrary determinations set forth in those 
contracts. This will allow the community the opportunity to come to the 
table and discuss the issue with the benefit of a clean slate, if it 
desires. And if there is consensus that there should be a policy-based 
means to provide and manage the Whois services, then we can initiate a 
PDP to find that common-ground and implement binding policy.

> We should focus on the incremental consensus that has been reached, and
> next steps to an implementable Consensus Policy. 
What incremental consensus is that? None of the IP lobby that I'm aware 
of supports the OPOC proposal and continues to view it as problematic 
even in light of the tangled mess of proposed changes that the captured 
working group has tabled. Furthermore, even those that did initially 
support the recommendations of the working group initially, for instance 
the banking sector, have pulled back from their support due to their 
failure to broaden the scope of the OPOC proposal sufficiently to ensure 
their version of unfettered access to personal data.
There is no consensus on these proposals.

--
Regards,

Ross Rader
Director, Retail Services
Tucows Inc.

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