FW: [council] Motion

["Joy Liddicoat" <joy@xxxxxxx>]

Hi ? I am just following up the GNSO Council meeting and sharing (below) the
proposed NCSG amendment to Wolf?s Motion on WHOIS access. 

Regards

Joy Liddicoat

 

From: Joy Liddicoat [mailto:joy@xxxxxxx] 
Sent: Friday, 8 June 2012 8:16 a.m.
To: 'KnobenW@xxxxxxxxxx'
Subject: RE: [council] Motion

 

Hi Wolf - *offlist*

Apologies for the late heads up but some messages came in overnight (NZ
time) to me about this motion.

We?d like to propose a friendly amendment to reflect NCSG concerns for
policy on access to WHOIS data to be consistent with public law human rights
standards. Our proposal is for a very simple addition 

 

Existing Motion:

THEREFORE BE IT,

Resolved, the GNSO Council recommends that the issue of WHOIS access (to
ensure that WHOIS data is accessible in an appropriately reliable,
enforceable, and consistent fashion) is included in the RAA Policy
Development Process when it commences.

Resolved, the GNSO Council will review by end of September, 2012, whether
the RAA PDP has commenced and included this issue or whether alternative
approaches should be pursued.

Proposed:

To insert after the word ?fashion? the words ?which does not violate freedom
of expression, privacy and related rights? so it would read: 

(to ensure that WHOIS data is accessible in an appropriately reliable,
enforceable, and consistent fashion which does not violate freedom of
expression, privacy and related rights)

 

I will raise it in the meeting but just wanted to check in with you about
whether you would regard this as friendly

 

Kind regards

 

Joy Liddicoat

 

From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On
Behalf Of KnobenW@xxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Thursday, 7 June 2012 11:58 p.m.
To: jonathan.robinson@xxxxxxxxxxx; council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: AW: [council] Motion

 

Hi Jonathan,

 

1.      it was the RAP WGs intention rather than mine to "determine what
additional research and processes may be needed to ensure that WHOIS data is
accessible in an appropriately reliable, enforceable, and consistent
fashion", and that's still valid. The council so far took several actions,
e.g. allocating the item to the WhoIs survey working team. This team just
didn't see the item being in its scope. That doesn't mean the item - as
intended by the RAG WG - is finished. So the council should search for
different approach e.g. covering it with the RAA PDP.
2.      It should be discussed whether the RAA PDP is the right way to do so
taking also into consideration the respective timeline. Any purposeful
alternativ suggestions welcome!

 

 

Best regards 
Wolf-Ulrich 

 

 


  _____  


Von: Jonathan Robinson [mailto:jonathan.robinson@xxxxxxxxxxx] 
Gesendet: Donnerstag, 7. Juni 2012 10:32
An: Knoben, Wolf-Ulrich; council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Betreff: RE: [council] Motion

Hi Wolf-Ulrich,

 

This is something that we discussed at our SG meeting today.  We are expect
to ask for a deferral in part because the situation with the RAA still
contains many moving parts.

 

There are two key areas which we would very much appreciate further
clarification and detail through discussion or on the list as follows:

 

1.       As clear as possible definition or specification on what you intend
to achieve with the WHOIS access 

2.       A better understanding of what is meant by the reference to the RAA
PDP.  
This seems to imply that the entire RAA may be the subject of a PDP whereas
clearly there are parts of the RAA that are and parts that are not subject
to the PDP.

 

Many thanks for any comment or input you are able to provide either on list
or in the meeting itself.

 

Best wishes,

 

 

 

Jonathan

 

From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On
Behalf Of KnobenW@xxxxxxxxxx
Sent: 30 May 2012 16:31
To: council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [council] Motion

 

On behalf of the ISPCP constituency I'd like to introduce the motion
attached to the 07 June council meeting.

 

Mit freundlichen Grüßen

Best regards

Wolf-Ulrich