<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1">
<META content="MSHTML 6.00.2800.1555" name=GENERATOR></HEAD>
<BODY id=role_body style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: #000000; FONT-FAMILY: Arial"
bottomMargin=7 leftMargin=7 topMargin=7 rightMargin=7><FONT id=role_document
face=Arial color=#000000 size=2>
<DIV>Bruce Tonkin, chair of the GNSO Council, posted the following note to the
Whois TF earlier today. It contains a segment on the GAC Communique on
Whois. Very obscure, but clearly there is a controversy going on in the
GAC.... Kathy</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>************************************************************************************************</DIV>
<DIV>Hello All,<BR><BR>I have extracted the following section from the GAC
Communiqué presented at the ICANN Board Public Forum on Thursday 29 June
2006.<BR><BR>Regards,<BR>Bruce Tonkin<BR><BR><BR><BR>II. WHOIS and New gTLDs
<BR><BR>The GAC Working Group on GNSO issues continued its focus on the
development <BR>of GAC Principles applicable to the WHOIS database and to the
introduction of <BR>new gTLDs, with the intention of sharing a stabilized draft
with the community in <BR>Sao Paulo and to enable the GAC to provide guidance to
the ICANN Board. <BR><BR>Consistent with the GAC's commitment to providing
information and advice on <BR>the range of public policy aspects of WHOIS data,
representatives from Consumer <BR>Protection Agencies in three GAC members, OPTA
in the Netherlands, MIC in <BR>Japan, and the FTC in the U.S. who made
presentations during an open session <BR>with the GNSO outlining their
respective perspectives and concerns regarding the <BR>accuracy and timely
access to WHOIS data. <BR><BR>Some of them and some GAC members also expressed
concerns regarding the <BR>implications for enforcement of laws of the recent
GNSO Council decision on a <BR>definition on the purpose of WHOIS data. Some GAC
members expressed <BR>concerns that formulation 2 would also not provide an
appropriate definition for <BR>the purposes of WHOIS. <BR><BR>The GAC
appreciates the interpretation of the GNSO Council Chair that <BR>formulation 1
does not imply that a decision has been taken to remove any data <BR>from public
access. <BR><BR>The GAC believes therefore that the final definition of the
purpose of WHOIS data <BR>needs to reflect the public policy concerns expressed
by GAC members. The GAC <BR>is intending to produce policy advice on the purpose
and use of WHOIS in the <BR>form of principles for the Sao Paulo meeting.
<BR></DIV></FONT></BODY></HTML>