RE: [council] Proposed WHOIS motion for 20 July 2006-- suggested edits and proposal for working with the ccTLD managers and SSAC
Dear all, As an FYI before we hear from the ccTLDs, we should ensure that all Council members have read CENTR's report on Whois, attached in this email. That should help councillors frame any further enquiries. All the best, Maria -----Original Message----- From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Marilyn Cade Sent: Monday, July 17, 2006 6:59 AM To: 'Bruce Tonkin'; 'Council GNSO'; 'Daniel Halloran'; 'Denise Michel' Subject: RE: [council] Proposed WHOIS motion for 20 July 2006-- suggested edits and proposal for working with the ccTLD managers and SSAC Dear Bruce and fellow Councilors, I have some concerns about the wording in the draft resolution, even with the improvements that the Chair has proposed. I have provided a redraft, and explain below the rationale for the suggested edits. However, I strongly recommend that we ask for advise and assistance in drafting resolutions from the Assistant General Counsel. I recall that when Louie was GC, we were often supported in drafting of complex resolutions, and given the sensitivities of where we are, I ask that we engage Dan's assistance and counsel, including joining us on the call. 1) I understand -- I THINK -- from the draft below that the goal is to be consistent with ICANN's mission and core values. However, that is not how the language presently reads -- and any translation of the present draft into other languages will be even more confusing. We need to be careful not to put our TFS, or ourselves as the Council into the role of interpreting the role of governments in areas such as consumer protection, law enforcement, or privacy. 2) Consumer Protection should be shown as a separate category in any drafting, along with privacy/data protection authorities/agencies, and law enforcement. 3) UNDERSTANDIGN WHAT CCTLDS DO IS USEFUL. Several have well established practices and policies, but we need to ensure that we look at a group that is representative as we do that examination and invite the ccTLD managers themselves, not ask the governments what the ccTLDs do. There are several models of CcTLDS. :-) I also prefer that we ask the ccTLD managers, and that may mean that we go beyond the ccNSO. One good way to do this is to repeat a session with the ccTLD managers that we did a few years ago, where we invited ccTLD managers to a consultation and spent some considerable time in dialogue. We could work jointly with the CCTLD Managers, assisted by the ccNSO 5) I am not supportive of eliminating a consultation with the SSAC. I was very troubled to learn that the SSAC had, on their own, after a conversation or two, decided to get engaged in developing a solution to WHOIS. There was no formal discussion with the Council on this topic, and apparently, they didn't understand the need to work closely, and transparently, with the COUNCIL, who is responsible for policy for gTLDS. I'd like to reinsert the inclusion of the SSAC as a group that the Council will work closely with. In my view, the Chair of the SSAC should join the Council in our discussions with the GAC/representatives of governments. I HAVE MARKED UP THE DRAFT BY INSERTING NEW LANGAUGE IN CAPS, AND USING [ ] TO SHOW DELETIONS. A DRAFT, WITHOUT MARK UP, IS PASTED HERE: (3) The Council will undertake a dialogue with governments, via the GAC, and to include the SSAC, to work towards developing a broadly understandable definition of the purposes for which the current data required in the Registrar Accreditation Agreement (see clause 3.4 of http://www.icann.org/registrars/ra-agreement-17may01.htm ), as listed below, is collected, retained and used. The dialogue should seek to examine and understand consumer protection, privacy/data protection and law enforcement views and perspectives and concerns, taking into account ICANN's mission and core values. In addition, to inform the Council's deliberations, this dialogue and examination should include gathering information and discourse with a representative group of ccTLD managers regarding their policies and rules of access to ccTLD data, and relevant national laws. -----Original Message----- From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Bruce Tonkin Sent: Friday, July 14, 2006 3:53 AM To: Council GNSO Subject: RE: [council] Proposed WHOIS motion for 20 July 2006 Hello All, > > (3) The Council will undertake a dialogue with governments, via the > GAC, AND TO INCLUDE THE SSAC, to work towards developing a broadly > understandable definition of the [minimum] purposes for which the > current data required in the Registrar Accreditation Agreement (see > clause 3.4 of http://www.icann.org/registrars/ra-agreement-17may01.htm > ), as listed > below, is collected,[ and] retained AND USED. The dialogue should seek > to EXAMINE AND UNDERSTAND CONSUMER PROTECTION, [balance] privacy and > law enforcement VIEWS AND PERSPECTIVES AND concerns, TAKING INTO ACCOUNT [with] ICANN's mission and > core values.[, and [must] take into account the views of law > enforcement agencies, data protection authorities,] IN ADDITION, TO INFORM THE COUNCIL'S DELIBERATIONS, THIS DIALOGUE AND EXAMINATION CAN INCLUDE the > policies and rules of access to ccTLD data, and relevant national > laws. An alternative wording for the last sentence is: The purpose of the dialogue should be to seek, to the extent reasonably possible, A balance of privacy, CONSUMER PROTECTION, and law enforcement PERSEPCTIVES AND concerns with ICANN's mission and core values, and may also consider the views of data protection authorities, the policies and rules of access to ccTLD data, and relevant national laws. Regards, Bruce Tonkin Attachment:
CENTR_WHOISpaper_June_2006.pdf
|