Re: [council] Proposed simplified WHOIS motion for 20 July 2006

[Ross Rader <ross@xxxxxxxxxx>]

I think it would be politically useful if this motion contained a 
reference to the other motion (formerly clause 3) that you removed from 
this for scope purposes. It need only be referential and something along 
the lines of "The GNSO Council will undertake the implementation of an 
additional work plan designed to better understand the needs of 
governments, via the GAC, related to the development of an 
understandable definition of the minimum purposes...etc.."
The reason for this would be to ensure that our intent regarding these 
initiatives remains very clear: i.e. that we are still committed to 
working to understand the broad range of issues, resolving outstanding 
existing Whois policy questions, etc. regardless of what definition of 
scope they fall under. Bootstrapping this work inside this motion will 
help those following along from home better understand our work by 
providing clear line of sight to the additional work items this ongoing 
discussion has spawned. My fear is that simply dropping this language 
entirely without explanation may be unduly confusing for anyone but the 
insiders. Any steps we can take to share a clear plan forward with our 
stakeholders and other concerned and interested parties will definitely 
make our job easier in the coming months.
(3) The Council will undertake a dialogue with governments,
> via the GAC, 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.   The dialogue should seek
> to balance
> privacy and law enforcement concerns with ICANN's mission and
> core values, and must take into account the views of law
> enforcement agencies, data protection authorities, the
> policies and rules of access to ccTLD data, and relevant
> national laws.
>
> Note that one of the purposes would be for the public display
> of some or all of the data as per the recent definition of
> the purpose of WHOIS.
> Note that Registrars are required (clause 3.7.7.4) to provide
> notice to each new or renewed Registered Name Holder stating
> the purposes for which any Personal Data collected from the
> applicant are intended, and the intended recipients or
> categories of recipients of the data (including the Registry
> Operator and others who will receive the data from Registry Operator).

Bruce Tonkin wrote:
> Hello All,
>
> Further to my previous motion, here is a simplified motion that is
> constrained to matters concerning the WHOIS service.
>
> Regards,
> Bruce Tonkin
>
>
>
> Proposed Simplified Motion on WHOIS
>
> The GNSO Council notes that the current WHOIS definition is related to
> the service that provides public access to some or all of the data
> collected, and is not a definition of the purpose of the data itself.
>
> In response to the extensive community and Government input on the
> definition of the purpose of WHOIS, the GNSO Council agrees to undertake
> the following steps:
>
> (1)  Each Council member that voted in favour of the definition will
> provide a brief explanation of the reason for supporting the resolution
> and their understanding of its meaning.
>
> (2) The ICANN staff will provide a summary of the other interpretations
> of the definition that have been expressed during the public comment
> period, and subsequently in correspondence from the public and
> Governments.
>
> (3) The GNSO Council requests that the WHOIS task force continue with
> their work as specified in the terms of reference taking into account
> the recent input that has been provided.
>
> (4)  The GNSO Council will take the final report from the WHOIS task
> force that addresses all terms of reference, and consider improving the
> wording of the WHOIS service definition so that it is broadly
> understandable.

Regards,

--

                       -ross rader
                        general manager,
                        domain direct/netidentity/nameplanet

Have you checked out the NetIdentity/Nameplanet Weblog?
http://netidentity.weblog.info