ICANN/GNSO GNSO Email List Archives


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

RE: [dow2tf] Topics to discuss

  • To: "'Cade,Marilyn S - LGCRP'" <mcade@xxxxxxx>, "'David W. Maher'" <dmaher@xxxxxxx>, "'2DOW2tf'" <dow2tf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Subject: RE: [dow2tf] Topics to discuss
  • From: "Tim Ruiz" <tim@xxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Fri, 23 Apr 2004 04:36:36 -0500
  • Importance: Normal
  • In-reply-to: <0F25F91B59355E42846E57527F331EA902BF66C4@lganj0se6.lga.att.com>
  • Sender: owner-dow2tf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Understood. But my point was that without some understanding about the
purpose of the Whois database I don't believe three separate task forces are
going to be able to recommend cohesive policies about how to change or
improve it. If we need to ask the Council about this instead of the Board,
that's fine.

Marilyn, you are intimately familiar with the work done on the new transfer
policy. As difficult as it was there was at least a clear purpose or mission
for transfers; a consistent, safe, and understandable process to ensure
domain name portability.

What is the purpose or mission of the Whois database? Is part of its mission
to facilitate law enforcement investigations? If so, then the
recommendations made in the NCUC statement would be inappropriate. OR, is
its mission strictly technical in nature? If so, then the recommendations
made in the IPC statement would be out of line.

If it's the intention of the Council that part of this PDP is to determine
that purpose, then it should be a single task force effort until such
purpose and mission is agreed upon and accepted by the Council, the Board,


-----Original Message-----
From: owner-dow2tf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-dow2tf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On
Behalf Of Cade,Marilyn S - LGCRP
Sent: Thursday, April 22, 2004 6:41 PM
To: David W. Maher; 2DOW2tf
Subject: RE: [dow2tf] Topics to discuss

There is not ICANN in this case, there is Council. All policy issues re
gTLDs belong to the gNSO. 
IF we start thinking there is an "ICANN" above and beyond the SOs that have
policy responsibility, we ar missing someting that COUNCIL and the
Constituencies fought to achieve in the ERC. POLICY is developed by
Council...The Board approves or remands... so what would "we" ask ICANN
about? IF we need to ask, we ask Council. Or am I missing hte purpose of a
bottom up, consens bases process, the basis of ICANN's legitimacy?

Marilyn S. Cade
AT&T Law & Government Affairs
1120 20th Street, NW, Suite 1000N
Washington, DC 20036

281-664-9731 e-fax
202-360-1196 c

-----Original Message-----
From: David W. Maher [mailto:dmaher@xxxxxxx]
Sent: Thursday, April 22, 2004 6:16 PM
To: '2DOW2tf'
Subject: RE: [dow2tf] Topics to discuss

We don't need to get into a discussion of the purposes of WHOIS. My 
constituency (registries) has its own view of the purposes and other 
constituencies have their own views. We can still work on the assigned 
purposes of this TF from a basis of disagreement on the ultimate purposes 
(We could still independently of the work of this TF ask ICANN  for 
clarification, but that should not divert us from what needs to be done.)

David Maher

At 12:19 PM 4/22/2004, Tim Ruiz wrote:
>That's not what I am saying at all. I am not questioning whether it should
>exist, just looking for an answer as what its function is supposed to be.
>Has ICANN ever published a clear statement on that?
>Right now what's going on is that everyone has their own view of what they
>think the Whois database is for and we're trying to coming up with policies
>about it. Seems to me the question of what it's for should be answered
>instead of trying to get the horse to push the cart.
>-----Original Message-----
>From: owner-dow2tf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-dow2tf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On
>Behalf Of Cade,Marilyn S - LGCRP
>Sent: Thursday, April 22, 2004 9:48 AM
>To: Tim Ruiz; Jordyn A. Buchanan; 2DOW2tf
>Subject: RE: [dow2tf] Topics to discuss
>You seem to be saying tht the TFs should have started with working first on
>whether WHOIS
>should exist. That is not agree to in the terms of reference of any of the
>TFs, and Council
>did not ask that question.
>WHOIS is a requirement that came in, with the creation of ICANN, as I
>recall. That is why it is in the registrar contracts...
>I know that some people do want to start with that question, but I don't
>on that approach, within the Council, and that  isn't the task(s) given to
>Council's TFs.
>Marilyn S. Cade
>AT&T Law & Government Affairs
>1120 20th Street, NW, Suite 1000N
>Washington, DC 20036
>281-664-9731 e-fax
>202-360-1196 c
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Tim Ruiz [mailto:tim@xxxxxxxxxxx]
>Sent: Thursday, April 22, 2004 9:26 AM
>To: 'Jordyn A. Buchanan'; '2DOW2tf'
>Subject: RE: [dow2tf] Topics to discuss
>Jordyn's item 1 is troubling, but important. No policy discussion on
>elements, access, accuracy, or privacy should even begin as long as there
>no consensus on the purpose of Whois. This has been my growing concern as I
>follow the work of these three task forces.
>I believe the question of purpose alone should have been the term of
>reference, or description of work, for a single task force so that later
>task forces could proceed with some common ground, and have a basis upon
>which to evaluate the appropriateness of any policy recommendations.
>Should there at least be a joint request from the three task forces to
>to provide a purpose statement or mission statement regarding Whois?
>-----Original Message-----
>From: owner-dow2tf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-dow2tf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On
>Behalf Of Jordyn A. Buchanan
>Sent: Wednesday, April 21, 2004 7:36 AM
>To: 2DOW2tf
>Subject: [dow2tf] Topics to discuss
>As we discussed on our last call, here are some core topics that were
>raised in a number of constituency statements (or in our conversation
>on Monday), and may be useful for us to discuss.  In some cases, I've
>identified some questions that may be helpful for us to answer.
>1) What is the purpose of Whois?
>2) What are the ideal methods for disclosing use of data and obtaining
>3) Can proxy services be improved to provide better privacy protection?
>4) Tiered Access
>    - What are reactions to Registrars' proposal?
>    - What are the concerns relating to tiered access?
>5) Preventing Marketing Uses--Are there implications for what data is
>6) Which data fields should be collected?
>7) Is there a useful distinction between commercial and noncommercial
>8) Is there a good mechanism to allow registrants with legitimate
>privacy concerns to opt-out on a case-by-case basis?
>9) What are the requirements of local/national privacy policies or

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