ICANN/GNSO GNSO Email List Archives


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

Re: [ga] BC response to WHOIS was runaround ;-)

  • To: ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Subject: Re: [ga] BC response to WHOIS was runaround ;-)
  • From: Hugh Dierker <hdierker2204@xxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Thu, 30 Aug 2007 06:48:33 -0700 (PDT)
  • Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=s1024; d=yahoo.com; h=X-YMail-OSG:Received:Date:From:Subject:To:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding:Message-ID; b=Kg/iNasK7jpkj0aNuw/IZFIOF3RrUnJOBEihLj+U63UreO5OV5QtZh8DhgQXx0TYSMMamRN1zUETWr2qtgFCbfQsqfj4C8L7azeEeLEr6tcXA61QnsmNZdtsbF3g+tOKNSLByJb2xIV1iaK3VPaQZfTWaYZAtVIHgLar12dGE4w=;
  • In-reply-to: <557975.73046.qm@web52203.mail.re2.yahoo.com>
  • Sender: owner-ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx

While the WG was in progress I got a feeling for the enormity of the problem. I immediately also go the impression that the WG was really just to hash out problems and come up with process solutions to handle the problems. I understood that there would be no attempt to reach a consensus. And that the differeing constituencies would have a word on how to proceed.  Well it looks like they have done and are doing all that.
  So it is and was a runaround - well at least they had a plan and stuck to it.
  I think it would be well for us to act like a constituency and create our own proposed resolution, following the template of the BC.

Danny Younger <dannyyounger@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: 

"Here is a proposed resolution from the Business

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)."

Choose the right car based on your needs. Check out Yahoo! Autos new Car Finder tool.

Sick sense of humor? Visit Yahoo! TV's Comedy with an Edge to see what's on, when. 

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