<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=US-ASCII">
<META content="MSHTML 6.00.6000.16527" 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>
<DIV><FONT style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" face=Arial color=#000000
size=2>All,</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" face=Arial color=#000000
size=2>I wanted to share a few more thoughts on why I think this is a good
motion, and some background on its introducer.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>After several years on the Whois Working Group, I came to have great
respect for Ross Rader of Tucows, the Motion's introducer. Ross and Tucows
are based out of Canada. Tucows cares deeply about its clients (including
noncommercial users and individuals) and deeply about the Internet. It
also very much wants to follow the laws of its country, including the data
protection laws of Canada. Being put in a position where the ICANN
Registrar contract on Whois violates the data protection laws of Canada is not a
good place for Tucows. </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>That is not to say that Tucows would protect all registrant data
unconditionally, but at the Vancouver conference we heard from the regional
telephone company and the policy director described the "due process"
requirements for the disclosure of personal data (the high legal standards set
up for when and how personal data can be disclosed in the case of an illegality
or emergency). I think these are rules Tucows would follow given the
opportunity. </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>As I read the Whois report, and Norbert's reports of what the Chairman (a
founding member of Intellectual Property Constituency put in) inserted without
agreement of the group, I completely agree with Ross' motion. We don't need more
meetings. We need a precedent for Whois that says that absent consensus
(general agreement broadly across constituencies), ICANN contracts cannot be
used to force registrants to give up fundamental rights, including rights of
fair use, privacy and freedom of expression.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>This issue that has taken too many years of people's lives (including
mine). It is time to roll up the carpet and set a good principle for future
ICANN contracts at the same time. Here's to Ross, and the motion's second
Mawaki, for a creative and critical next step.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Best,</DIV>
<DIV>Kathy Kleiman </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" face=Arial color=#000000
size=2>-----Original Message-----<BR>From: Non-Commercial User
Constituency<BR>[mailto:NCUC-DISCUSS@LISTSERV.SYR.EDU] On Behalf Of Alan
Levin<BR><BR>>Please point me to this resolution. I looked for 15 minutes and
then <BR>>gave up.<BR><BR>Sure, apologies, it was appended to the end
of my back on Sunday:<BR><BR>Motion #3 conditional motion offered by Ross Rader,
seconded by Mawaki<BR>Chango (may be withdrawn if Doria motion above is
approved)<BR> <BR>Whereas;<BR><BR>(i) The GNSO Council has considered the
reports of the WHOIS Working<BR>Group and WHOIS Task Force, and;<BR>(ii) That
the GNSO Council vote on resolution [XXXXX] failed to produce<BR>supermajority
or majority support for the recommendations of the report<BR>of the Task Force,
and;<BR>(iii) The GNSO Council considers that the results of this vote
signifies<BR>the continued lack of consensus on the key issues and possible
solutions<BR>to those issues, both within the Council, the GNSO and between
key<BR>stakeholder groups, and;<BR>(iv) The GNSO Council recognizes that there
is no standing consensus<BR>policy concerning the management of the WHOIS
service and data provided<BR>to the public through that service by ICANN's
contracted commercial<BR>operators, the registries and registrars, save and
except the WHOIS Data<BR>Reminder Policy and the WHOIS Marketing Restriction
Policy, and;<BR>(v) That significant policy must have the support of the
Internet and<BR>DNS community and without that support, those policies cannot
be<BR>reasonably implemented or enforced.<BR><BR>Therefore be it
resolved;<BR><BR>(i) That, with regret, the GNSO Council advises the ICANN staff
and<BR>Board of Directors of the lack of general consensus on the key
issues<BR>and solutions pertaining to gTLD WHOIS, and;<BR>(ii) That due to this
lack of consensus the GNSO Council recommends that<BR>the Board consider
"sunsetting" the existing current contractual<BR>requirements concerning WHOIS
for registries, registrars and registrants<BR>that are not supported by
consensus policy by removing these unsupported<BR>provisions from the current
operating agreements between ICANN and its<BR>contracted parties, and;<BR>(iii)
That these provisions be sunset no later than the end of the 2008<BR>ICANN
Annual General Meeting and;<BR>(iv) That such provisions will remain sunset
until such time that<BR>consensus policy in this area has been developed to
replace the sunset<BR>provisions, at which point they will be eliminated or
modified.<BR><BR></DIV></FONT></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV></FONT><BR><BR><BR><DIV><FONT style="color: black; font: normal 10pt ARIAL, SAN-SERIF;"><HR style="MARGIN-TOP: 10px">See what's new at <A title="http://www.aol.com?NCID=AOLCMP00300000001170" href="http://www.aol.com?NCID=AOLCMP00300000001170" target="_blank">AOL.com</A> and <A title="http://www.aol.com/mksplash.adp?NCID=AOLCMP00300000001169" href="http://www.aol.com/mksplash.adp?NCID=AOLCMP00300000001169" target="_blank">Make AOL Your Homepage</A>.</FONT></DIV></BODY></HTML>