RE: [council] Proposed amendment to BCUC motion

["Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Mike,

To what are you referring when you say, "your proposal is also of
financial benefit to Registries"?

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 Mike Rodenbaugh
> Sent: Thursday, August 30, 2007 1:34 PM
> To: ross@xxxxxxxxxx
> Cc: Council GNSO
> Subject: RE: [council] Proposed amendment to BCUC motion
> 
> What else do the Registrars not like in their contracts?  
> Maybe you could propose a PDP to examine them for awhile, 
> obstruct and obfuscate the process so that there is no 
> consensus as to continued viability of those provisions, and 
> so argue that they too should be removed.  If you are 
> successful with this on WHOIS, what will be next?
> 
> Of course, your proposal is also of financial benefit to 
> Registries, and satisfies the NCUC completely.  So it is 
> surprising they have never to date advocated it, but will not 
> be surprising if they agree with it now.
> I cannot imagine the other three Constituencies supporting 
> it.  So we will have a deeply divided Council on this issue, 
> obviously.  
> 
> So the answer then ought to be to work and discuss further to 
> try to reach consensus.  The WG found consensus on several 
> fundamental points, even as to a general OPoC policy that was 
> not supported by 3 Constituencies.  The WG also several 
> factual points of contention that, if resolved, could lead to 
> consensus policy.  We should not throw away all the work that 
> has gone into this, and decide on a radical solution that has 
> never previously been proposed or discussed.
> 
> The existing contractual provisions are certainly not 
> 'unsupported' and obviously were the product of consensus 
> among not only the contracting parties but also the rest of 
> the community.  Everyone or at least 'almost everyone' should 
> agree on any change to that status quo, including of course 
> any proposal to eliminate it.
> 
> Mike Rodenbaugh
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ross Rader [mailto:ross@xxxxxxxxxx]
> Sent: Thursday, August 30, 2007 10:11 AM
> To: Mike Rodenbaugh
> Cc: Council GNSO
> Subject: Re: [council] Proposed amendment to BCUC motion
> 
> Mike Rodenbaugh wrote:
>  > Ross, you cannot honestly call this a 'proposed amendment' 
> to our  > motion.  It has nothing to do with our motion.
> 
> Shall I assume then that you don't view this as a friendly amendment?
> 
> > You are proposing that ICANN remove all existing contractual
> provisions
> > regarding WHOIS, on the basis that a consensus WHOIS policy has not
> been
> > achieved to date.  That is the first time I have ever heard someone 
> > suggest that lack of consensus as to policy to change the 
> status quo, 
> > would lead to elimination of the status quo -- and thus in this
> matter,
> > elimination of an open and accessible WHOIS database.  I am quite 
> > surprised to read such a proposal for the first time today, and 
> > surprised that you did not even mention it for discussion 
> on our GNSO 
> > call today, nor in the past 7 years of debate as far as I know.
> 
> In reviewing this proposal today, I said that the matter 
> before council is to test consensus on the issue of Whois 
> policy. I was very clear about this when I reviewed this 
> motion on the call today. If council conducts this test and 
> cannot find consensus, how does it stand that the
> 
> status quo should be the default position? This might benefit 
> your constituency, so I find your reaction understandable, 
> but I don't understand your reasoning that a lack of 
> consensus concerning whois policy means that the unsupported, 
> non-consensus based contractual conditions should continue to prevail.
> 
> And for what its worth, I am not the first to advance this 
> reasoning, although I do believe that it is a proper way to 
> proceed in the event that there is no consensus regarding how 
> Whois should be managed and maintained.
> 
> > 
> > I recall you stating at our GNSO Council meeting that 
> kicked off this
> > WG, that you would see lack of consensus as meaning we carry on with
> the
> > status quo.  Apparently your statements were disingenuous or your
> > thinking has changed dramatically since.  
> 
> My thinking has changed, yes. My apologies for taking a less than 
> dogmatic approach.
> 
> > It now seems clear that your
> > long and hard battling on this issue has been designed to eliminate
> ANY
> > cost or obligation among registrars re WHOIS, rather than 
> to mitigate
> > any 'increased' cost above the status quo, as you have so frequently
> > argued.    
> 
> Actually both characterizations are incorrect. My policy object has 
> always been to improve the privacy of individuals as it 
> relates to Whois
> 
> such that my organization can reasonably defend its business 
> practice to
> 
> its customers in a meaningful way consistent with Canadian law. There 
> was also a time when I thought that supposed industry leaders 
> might take
> 
> a similarly enlightened view. Too bad that protecting your 
> trademarks in
> 
> 14 languages has to take precedent over making the internet a 
> slightly 
> better place, although I understand why a large publicly 
> traded company 
> might get its priorities mixed up once in a while.
> 
> > 
> > These contractual provisions have existed for a very long time, for
> very
> > good reasons, and should not be considered for potential elimination
> > without a PDP designed to analyze that potential outcome.  
> As far as I
> > know, it simply has never been proposed or discussed that we would
> > eliminate WHOIS altogether, so it would be ridiculous for Council to
> > consider that as an option now.
> 
> PDP stands for Policy Development Process. If you'd like to 
> propose that
> 
> Council undertake a study to understand the implications of 
> enacting, or
> 
> redacting a policy, your proposal might make some sense. In the 
> meantime, I've made a proposal that council support the 
> elimination of 
> contractual terms for registrars on the basis that there is 
> no consensus
> 
> policy to support these terms, nor any basis for consensus to be 
> achieved in this area. It also leaves the door open such that if 
> consensus policy on Whois services is developed in the future, than 
> these consensus policies would be implemented just like any other 
> consensus policy (i.e. Transfers, Data Reminder Policy, etc.)
> 
> -- 
> Regards,
> 
> Ross Rader
> Director, Retail Services
> Tucows Inc.
> 
> http://www.domaindirect.com
> t. 416.538.5492
> 
>