ICANN/GNSO GNSO Email List Archives


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

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

Per my earlier message, the proposed SOW is somewhat incongruent with the motion we passed at Council. I agree that completely revisiting the motion is probably not our best option, but we should at least seek to ensure that the SOW is consistent with the motion, which I don't believe is the case right now.

On 11-Apr-07, at 4:32 PM, Gomes, Chuck wrote:

I think we also have to be careful about undoing the extensive work that was done 'live' in Lisbon in crafting the motion. We spent the majority of our time in the Council meeting in Lisbon on this one issue and even worked through what was supposed to be a lunch break. If we restart the
process of amending the motion over again I am fearful that we will
again spend the majority of our meeting time trading amendments without
moving the process forward.  I doubt very seriously that there is any
possibility of writing the motion so that it perfectly satisfies
everyone but the important thing is make it clear enough that
constructive work can proceed in a timely fashion. I agree that the SoW
needs to be reasonably bounded but I would oppose making it so
restrictive that creative thinking was limited that might result in
totally new approaches not yet considered.  It's not as if strong
consensus was reached by the working group so there seems to be plenty
of room for collaborative work if all sides are willing to commit to it.

I would suggest that we limit the time we spend discussing and
considering amendments; if quick consensus can be reached, fine; if not, then it might be best to accept the motion as drafted in Lisbon and work
on forming the group, identifying a chair, finalizing the procedural
guidelines, etc.

Chuck Gomes

"This message is intended for the use of the individual or entity to
which it is addressed, and may contain information that is privileged,
confidential and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. Any
unauthorized use, distribution, or disclosure is strictly prohibited. If
you have received this message in error, please notify sender
immediately and destroy/delete the original transmission."

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Robin Gross
Sent: Wednesday, April 11, 2007 2:50 PM
To: Maria Farrell; 'Council GNSO'
Subject: Re: [council] Draft Charter for new Whois Working Group

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

Thank you,

Robin Gross wrote:

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

Under section 4b, Change the sentence "Determine how third
parties may
access registration data that is no longer available for
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

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

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 >>>