Fwd: RE: [council] Proposed WHOIS motion for 20 July 2006

[Iliya Nickelt]

The amount of lobbying is frightening and doomed to rais my prejudices of
the US industry and it's close ties to government. Where are the comments
about about the value of data protection, of freedom?
I can only ask the council members to defend the decision that a solid
majority of the GNSO favoured before the pressure started. It is not up
to ICANN to set the law for the international need of an imprint -- even
if the whois service has been that in the past. Governments may do that
if they want, but not ICANN. It was about time that this issue was
resolved.

--- Maria Farrell <maria.farrell at icann.org> wrote:
> Not all input received explicitly interprets the definition. For this
> reason, a considerable number of inputs are not reflected in the
> summary.
So comments raising data protection issues failed to interpret the whois
definition, I guess. Has ICANN staff decided already?

not so objective today,
	--iliya


> --- Maria Farrell <maria.farrell at icann.org> wrote:
> > In response to Bruce's proposed motion on Whois, section (2);
> >
> > "(2) The ICANN staff will provide a summary of the other
> > interpretations of
> > the definition that have been expressed during the public
> > comment period,
> > and subsequently in correspondence from the public and
> > Governments."
> >
> >
> > Please find attached a table that summarises interpretations
> > of the
> > definition of the purpose of Whois ("Formulation 1"). This
> > information is
> > captured from the inputs received on this issue from March to
> > June of this
> > year.
> >
> > Not all input received explicitly interprets the definition.
> > For this
> > reason, a considerable number of inputs are not reflected in
> > the summary.