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

["Anthony Harris" <harris@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

I agree with Chuck

Tony Harris

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: <robin@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>; "Maria Farrell" <maria.farrell@xxxxxxxxx>; 
"Council GNSO" <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Wednesday, April 11, 2007 5:32 PM
Subject: RE: [council] Draft Charter for new Whois Working Group


> 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
> > THE OPOC PROPOSAL may be IMPLEMENTED IN A WAY TO ADDRESS
> > THOSE ISSUES."
> >
> > Thank you,
> > Robin
> >
> > 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."
> > > to...
> > > 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
> > > principles...."
> > >
> > > Reason:
> > > 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,
> > > Robin
> > >
> > >
> > > 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,
> > >>
> > >> -ross
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> 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
> > >> http://www.domaindirect.com
> > >>
> > >> "To solve the problems of today, we must focus on tomorrow."
> > >> - Erik Nupponen
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >
> > >