Re: [council] Compromise wording on WHOIS

[Mawaki Chango <ki_chango@xxxxxxxxx>]

Greetings to all!

Philip,

So now you are recognizing that the Formulations #2 are all flawed,
and the only way for you to justify them is to redesign the terms of
reference of the WHOIS Task Force? Of course the question of use
divides us, and to address that, we need to address the bigger
picture as to what the Whois has been defined to achieve. For the use
cannot go against the purpose, right? or are you asking ICANN to
cover a misuse?

It's fine with me if you want to define the "purpose for which data
is collected," but what I'm saying is defining that, based on the
practice, does not make it the legitimate purpose of the WHOIS which
ICANN is concerned with. So you cannot by any means substitute that
definition to the definition of the purpose of WHOIS (not even by
criticizing the TF or its report).

We are all for law enforcement, with this precision: through due
processes, as it has worked fine so far in the democratic countries
we are living in, or would like to live in. And I'm sure it will
still work.

Formulation #1 is not only an "historic truth" that is still a source
of legitimacy (since we're still living in the era of that history,
as long as ICANN has the mission it has as of today), but it is an
effort to keep a healthy consistency between the mission and purpose
on one hand and the use on the other hand, while balancing different
interests.
Formulation #2 is an attempt to entrench today's practice and use
into the ICANN's mission and core values and maybe subsequently, into
its Bylaws.

The Wednesday call will take place early in the morning o my side,
and I have other commitments an hour or so after the planned starting
time. So I' hopinp that the Council will not divert its business to
debating what would be the best Formulation #2, or playing a remake
of the Whois TF's work. Let's vote between Formulation #1 and
Formulation #2 (revised or not), keeping in mind the question we are
here to address: the definition of the purpose of WHOIS, thanks you.

Best regards,

Mawaki




--- Philip Sheppard <philip.sheppard@xxxxxx> wrote:

> 
> Ross, Council members
>  
> The question
> ----------------
> I make no apology for changing the question.
> The TF failed to come up with an answer to the question posed, so
> this does suggest it might
> have been the wrong one in the first place.
> Evidence for this assertion is all around us. If one reads the
> argumentation in the TF
> report from those in favour of formulation 1 or 2, it is clear many
> favour one option or the
> other based on issues of data use.
> It is the question of use that divides us.  We cannot escape
> addressing this issue.
>  
> The objective
> ------------------
> If Council accepts that use by law enforcement or other parties
> pursuing objectives of
> user/consumer protection is an objective we endorse, then we MUST
> agree to define the
> "purpose for which data is collected". Without that such use
> contravenes most data
> protection laws. This is the issue.
> 
> The blind alley
> --------------------
> Defining WHOIS purpose based on its historic technical context may
> be a statement of fact
> but it does nothing to enlighten the WHOIS issues that have been
> aired over the last 5
> years.
> That is our task. Not restating the past.
> Formulation 1 is an historic truth, conveniently devoid of today's
> issue.
> Formulation 2 was attempting to recognise today's issue but used
> fuzzy language.
> My compromise seeks to focus the language more specifically on the
> issue.
> 
> 
> Philip
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>