ICANN/GNSO GNSO Email List Archives


<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

Re: [council] Draft Charter for new Whois Working Group

  • To: Maria Farrell <maria.farrell@xxxxxxxxx>, "'Council GNSO'" <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Subject: Re: [council] Draft Charter for new Whois Working Group
  • From: Robin Gross <robin@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2007 11:49:54 -0700
  • In-reply-to: <461AF898.7030301@ipjustice.org>
  • Organization: IP Justice
  • References: <002701c772d2$94b3f9f0$62f289c1@scarlet> <B897B789-E93B-442D-8673-9F58127C727C@tucows.com> <461AF898.7030301@ipjustice.org>
  • Reply-to: robin@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Sender: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; PPC Mac OS X Mach-O; en-US; rv:1.7.12) Gecko/20050915

NCUC amends this motion to include one additional point of clarification that is necessary to keep this working group focused. The objective proposed in the draft charter is badly worded because it would allow for each and every recommendation of the previous whois task force to be revisited ("examine the issues raised with respect to the policy recommendation of the task force and make recommendations concerning how those policies may be improved...).

This new working group is not meant to "undo" the three years of work on the whois task force. Therefore it is important that we keep this new working group on track by more clearly stating the objective.

NCUC proposes to amend the basic objective [new words in CAPS] as follows:

"The objective of the working group is to examine the IMPLEMENTATION issues raised BY the recommendED OPOC PROPOSAL of the task force, and make recommendations concerning how THE OPOC PROPOSAL may be IMPLEMENTED IN A WAY TO ADDRESS THOSE ISSUES."

Thank you,

Robin Gross wrote:

In considering this WG charter April 12, NCUC moves to amend it as follows:

Under section 4b, Change the sentence "Determine how third parties may access
registration data that is no longer available for unrestricted public
query-based access for legitimate activities."
Determine which third parties, under which conditions, may access
registration data that is no longer available for unrestricted public
query-based access."
Also, strike the 8 paragraphs beginning "The GAC policy

The opening sentence of 4b reads as if ANY third party will be given
access to the data for any activity. But this begs the policy question
that the WG must answer, which is WHICH third parties (e.g., just law
enforcement agencies, or others) and under WHAT CONDITIONS.

As for the second change, having discussed this with GAC members, the
objections of the EU to the language was resolved by stating that some
of the ACTIVITIES that Whois data was used for was legitimate, but this
did not necessarily mean that ACCESS TO THE PRIVATE DATA was also
legitimate. Also, the Whois task force has already determined that the
purpose of Whois does not include many of these activities, so there is
no obligation on ICANN to make the data available for those activities.

Thank you,

Ross Rader wrote:

Maria -

Many thanks for turning this around so quickly. The draft is generally great. I'd like to suggest that the section entitled "work plan" uses the relevant text of the resolution instead of the language currently employed. In a couple of places, the work plan outlines a much greater scope of work than that contemplated by the resolutions, specifically;

4.a proposed expands the examination of the definition of the roles to all contacts, whereas the resolution only sought to examine the definition of the operational point of contact.

4.b proposed requests the WG to determine how third parties may access unpublished data for legitimate activities, whereas the resolution only seeks to describe how legitimate interests will access unpublished data. The difference seems small, but the proposed language requests the creation of a comprehensive proposal that describes an access mechanism for a long list of "legitimate activities" rather than a proposal that describes an access mechanism for use by legitimate interests.

4.c proposed additionally requests the WG to determine how the distinctions should be made whereas the Council resolution only sought to discover if the distinctions in question were possible to make.

In each of these cases, it might just make the most sense to rely on the text of the original resolution as ratified by Council to ensure that we don't lose clarity on our actual objectives.

Second, a question. Concerning the issue of defining agreement. When it comes to understanding what constitutes "broad agreement", will this be measured on the views shared by individuals or interest groups?

Finally, in order to ensure that we're all working from the same foundation, it might make sense to specifically include the policy recommendations of the task force in the document itself, either as a summary, or an annex that we can easily refer to. The policy recommendations that I am referring to are included in section 4 of the report, as per the clarifications I made during our discuss at the recent Council meeting.

Thanks again,


On 30-Mar-07, at 2:51 PM, Maria Farrell wrote:

Dear Council members,

Attached is the draft Charter that sets out the statement of work and
working methodologies of the Whois Working Group, created by resolution of
the GNSO Council in Lisbon, on 28 March.

Please review it and note that it will be an agenda item for discussion and
adoption at the next Council meeting on 12 April.

Also, please email this list if you wish to be on the Working Group, and feel free to to put any interested constituency members or outside experts
in touch with me for further information.

All the best, Maria
<Whois Working Group Charter2.doc>

Ross Rader
Director, Retail Services
t. 416.538.5492
c. 416.828.8783

"To solve the problems of today, we must focus on tomorrow."
- Erik Nupponen

<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>