RE: [council] BC proposal re WHOIS

[Mawaki Chango <ki_chango@xxxxxxxxx>]

Indeed, the Whois work may not be close to be finished... But
this is not necessarily to say the GNSO Council is not.

All the uses that you mention are recognized by all, even by the
NCUC. And since you mention the GAC Principles, they too
recognized those _uses_ as legitimate, but they also state that
that is not the Whois _purpose_ and that national laws must be
taken into account.

Now, maybe that is too much of responsibility for the GNSO
council, maybe there is a need for political decisions to be
made here, maybe it is time that governments proactively tackle
the issue, agree among themselves and decide whether a uniform,
global Whois policy is possible at all, and if so, with what
modalities, etc. and provide ICANN and the GNSO council a valid
and stable legal framework to work with. One thing for sure,
having ICANN require organizations by contract to break the law
in their jurisdiction is not a sustainable solution, not even
for the sake of hunting down delinquents and criminals.

If the initial and ultimate objective for the council work was
to develop a consensus policy, that obviously is not possible
under the present circumstances - we are not anywhere near to
come up with a consensus among not just the GNSO's, but the
Internet stakeholders. Maybe it's just time that we recognize
that.

Mawaki


 

--- "Rosette, Kristina" <krosette@xxxxxxx> wrote:

> As an initial matter, the GAC Principles Regarding gTLD Whois
> Services
> specifically recommend that information should be gathered "on
> gTLD
> domain name registrations and registrants and how WHOIS data
> is used and
> misused.  This information should be publicized and used to
> inform
> future debate on this issue."  
> 
> The GAC Chair specifically noted this recommendation in our
> joint
> meetings in both Lisbon and San Juan.  To the best of my
> knowledge, we
> have not acted on this recommendation.  I believe we have an
> obligation
> to do so.  That action may be to undertake the study, as
> proposed in the
> resolution below. That action may also be to reject the
> recommendation,
> and provide our reasoning for doing so.   To simply ignore the
> recommendation, which it appears to me that we have done thus
> far, seems
> to me to be counterproductive to the long-term functionality
> of the
> ICANN organizational structure.  
> 
> Having said that, I don't believe we have the quantitative and
> qualitative information that should be considered before
> making a
> dramatic change in policy.  Indeed, the existence of the ad
> hoc group on
> domain tasting demonstrates our recognition that such data is
> an
> important input for policy considerations. Why is Whois any
> different?
> 
> To the best of my knowledge, we don't have data on the type of
> abuse and
> the scale of abuse.  We also don't have data as to how often
> law
> enforcement uses Whois data, how often the private sector uses
> it to
> prevent and fight consumer harm caused by phishing and
> counterfeiting,
> and how often the private sector uses it for other purposes
> such as
> verifying "ownership" of a domain name (or, more often, a
> portfolio of
> names) in connection with a business transaction such as a
> merger or
> acquisition, for securitization of loans, for satisfying
> creditors of an
> entity in bankruptcy, or simply to sell the name.  For
> example, it's a
> safe bet that the domain auction at the recent Domain
> Roundtable would
> not have produced nearly $ 3.8 million in sales (or any at
> all, for that
> matter) if the purchasers could not verify in real-time that
> the
> purported seller was actually the registrant. 
> 
> Your other points are important ones and, in my view, the fact
> that
> these questions exist means that we're not close to being
> finished.
> 
> Kristina 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> [mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
> On Behalf Of Mawaki Chango
> Sent: Thursday, August 30, 2007 8:02 AM
> To: Mike Rodenbaugh; GNSO Council
> Subject: RE: [council] BC proposal re WHOIS
> 
> And the NCUC certainly does not agree with this resolution
> project:
> 
> 1. It's surprising that there are people who still don't see
> that
> there's a problem with the current Whois policy ("study 4, and
> to the
> extent it reveals that there is a problem with the current
> Whois
> policy,...") This would be, I'm afraid, a waste of ICANN's
> resources and
> brave people's time, once more.
> 
> 2. There a fact: Whois policy is in conflict with national
> laws (and
> even more than the number of them we hear about.) Then what is
> that
> policy, meant to be global, where exceptions become a routine?
> 
> 3. What will be the terms of the cost/benefit analysis in
> order to
> provide a comprehensive basis for evaluation? How are they
> going to
> account for the political conundrum?
> 
> Mawaki
> 
> --- "Rosette, Kristina" <krosette@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> 
> > The Intellectual Property Constituency agrees with and
> supports the 
> > proposed resolution from the Business Constituency.
> >  
> > Kristina Rosette
> >  
> > 
> > 
> > ________________________________
> > 
> >     From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > [mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Mike
> Rodenbaugh
> >     Sent: Wednesday, August 29, 2007 11:13 AM
> >     To: GNSO Council
> >     Subject: [council] BC proposal re WHOIS
> >     
> >     
> > 
> >     All,
> > 
> >      
> > 
> >     The BC agrees with the WG that further study of WHOIS
> issues is 
> > warranted, however we believe the recommended studies should
> be 
> > conducted in phases so as to potentially conserve ICANN
> resources in 
> > the event that early studies show that later planned studies
> are not 
> > warranted or should be modified.
> > 
> >      
> > 
> >     Here is a proposed resolution from the Business
> Constituency:
> > 
> >      
> > 
> >     1.      The GNSO Council hereby accepts the WG report and
> > acknowledges the tremendous effort by WG participants and
> ICANN staff.
> >     2.      The GNSO Council particularly recognizes the WG chair
> > for his adept leadership through a contentious and
> controversial WG 
> > process.
> >     3.      The GNSO Council does not consider the WG report as an
> > adequate basis for any implementation of OPOC. 
> >     4.      The GNSO Council requests that ICANN staff proceed with
> > the 4 studies described in Section 8 of the WG report, as
> > follows: 
> > 
> >             1.      Proceed with study 4 on the characteristics of
> > the Whois database first.  This study should include a
> review and 
> > analysis of the different proxy services.
> >             2.      Following completion of study 4, and to the
> > extent it reveals that there is a problem with the current
> Whois 
> > policy, ICANN Staff should proceed with study one - the
> cost/benefit 
> > analysis.
> > Completion of study 4 should help determine the parameters
> of the 
> > cost/benefit analysis, since the scope of the problem will
> be known 
> > and documented.
> >             3.      To the extent that the cost/benefit analysis
> > determines that the benefits of changing the Whois policy
> exceed the 
> > costs, ICANN Staff should proceed with a third study that
> merges study
> 
> > two on self-certification (this should include an analysis
> of an ex 
> > post facto review mechanism) and study 3 on authentication
> (which 
> > should include authentication of any parties with a
> legitimate 
> > interest in the data).
> > 
> >      
> > 
> >     Thanks.
> > 
> >      
> > 
> >     Mike Rodenbaugh
> > 
> >     Officer, Business and Commercial Users Constituency
> > 
> > 
> 
> 
> 
>