[Fwd: Re: [council] Draft Charter for new Whois Working Group]

[Mawaki Chango]

> The objective of the WG is to examine the IMPLEMENTATION
> issues raised
> BY the recommendED OPOC PROPOSAL of the task force, and make
> recommendations concerning how THE OPOC PROPOSAL may be
> IMPLEMENTED.

Maybe adding: "...in a way to address those issues." -?

Btw, I'm hoping to be on the call on Thursday, but would be
nice/easier if we were 2, or even better, 3.

Mawaki

--- Milton Mueller <Mueller at SYR.EDU> wrote:

> Thanks Robin.
>
> I have found a more fundamental problem with the Draft
> Charter.
>
> The basic objective of the charter is defined thusly:
>
> "The objective of the [new whois] WG is to examine the issues
> raised
> with respect to the policy recommendations of the task force
> and make
> recommendations concerning how those policies recommendations
> may be
> improved to address these issues."
>
> This is either very badly worded or an utterly outrageous
> attempt to
> undo three years of work on the Whois TF.
>
> Taken literally, this "objective" means that the new WG can
> revisit
> every and any recommendation of the Task Force. (examine the
> issues
> raised wutg respect to the policy recommendations of the task
> force and
> make recommendations concerning how those policies may be
> improved...")
>
> I would propose rewording it as follows [new words in CAPS]:
>
> The objective of the WG is to examine the IMPLEMENTATION
> issues raised
> BY the recommendED OPOC PROPOSAL of the task force, and make
> recommendations concerning how THE OPOC PROPOSAL may be
> IMPLEMENTED.
>
> >>> Robin Gross <robin at ipjustice.org> 4/9/2007 10:42 PM >>>
> FYI:
>
> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: 	Re: [council] Draft Charter for new Whois Working
> Group
> Date: 	Mon, 09 Apr 2007 19:38:16 -0700
> From: 	Robin Gross <robin at ipjustice.org>
> Reply-To: 	robin at ipjustice.org
> Organization: 	IP Justice
> To: 	Maria Farrell <maria.farrell at icann.org>, 'Council GNSO'
> <council at gnso.icann.org>
> References: 	<002701c772d2$94b3f9f0$62f289c1 at scarlet>
> <B897B789-E93B-442D-8673-9F58127C727C at tucows.com>
>
>
>
> In considering this WG charter April 12, NCUC moves to amend
> it as
> follows:
>
> Under section 4b,
> Change the sentence "Determine how third parties may access
> registration data that is no longer available for unrestricted
> public
> query-based access for legitimate activities."
>
> to...
>
> Determine which third parties, under which conditions, may
> access
> registration data that is no longer available for unrestricted
> public
> query-based access."
>
> Also, strike the 8 paragraphs beginning "The GAC policy
> principles...."
>
> Reason:
> The opening sentence of 4b reads as if ANY third party will be
> given
> access to the data for any activity. But this begs the policy
> question
> that the WG must answer, which is WHICH third parties (e.g.,
> just law
> enforcement agencies, or others) and under WHAT CONDITIONS.
>
> As for the second change, having discussed this with GAC
> members, the
> objections of the EU to the language was resolved by stating
> that some
> of the ACTIVITIES that Whois data was used for was legitimate,
> but
> this
> did not necessarily mean that ACCESS TO THE PRIVATE DATA was
> also
> legitimate. Also, the Whois task force has already determined
> that the
> purpose of Whois does not include many of these activities, so
> there
> is
> no obligation on ICANN to make the data available for those
> activities.
>
>
> Thank you,
> Robin
>
>
> Ross Rader wrote:
>
> > Maria -
> >
> > Many thanks for turning this around so quickly. The draft is
>
> > generally great. I'd like to suggest that the section
> entitled "work
>
> > plan" uses the relevant text of the resolution instead of
> the
> > language currently employed. In a couple of places, the work
> plan
> > outlines a much greater scope of work than that contemplated
> by the
>
> > resolutions, specifically;
> >
> > 4.a proposed expands the examination of the definition of
> the roles
>
> > to all contacts, whereas the resolution only sought to
> examine the
> > definition of the operational point of contact.
> >
> > 4.b proposed requests the WG to determine how third parties
> may
> > access unpublished data for legitimate activities, whereas
> the
> > resolution only seeks to describe how legitimate interests
> will
> > access unpublished data. The difference seems small, but the
> proposed
>
> > language requests the creation of a comprehensive proposal
> that
> > describes an access mechanism for a long list of "legitimate
>
> > activities" rather than a proposal that describes an access
> mechanism
>
> > for use by legitimate interests.
> >
> > 4.c proposed additionally requests the WG to determine how
> the
> > distinctions should be made whereas the Council resolution
> only
> > sought to discover if the distinctions in question were
> possible to
>
> > make.
> >
> > In each of these cases, it might just make the most sense to
> rely on
>
> > the text of the original resolution as ratified by Council
> to ensure
>
> > that we don't lose clarity on our actual objectives.
> >
> > Second, a question. Concerning the issue of defining
> agreement. When
>
> > it comes to understanding what constitutes "broad
> agreement", will
> > this be measured on the views shared by individuals or
> interest
> groups?
> >
> > Finally, in order to ensure that we're all working from the
> same
> > foundation, it might make sense to specifically include the
> policy
> > recommendations of the task force in the document itself,
> either as a
>
> > summary, or an annex that we can easily refer to. The policy
>
> > recommendations that I am referring to are included in
> section 4 of
>
> > the report, as per the clarifications I made during our
> discuss at
> > the recent Council meeting.
> >
> > Thanks again,
> >
> > -ross
> >
> >
> >
> > On 30-Mar-07, at 2:51 PM, Maria Farrell wrote:
> >
> >> Dear Council members,
> >>
> >> Attached is the draft Charter that sets out the statement
> of work
> and
> >> working methodologies of the Whois Working Group, created
> by
> >> resolution of
> >> the GNSO Council in Lisbon, on 28 March.
> >>
> >> Please review it and note that it will be an agenda item
> for
> >> discussion and
> >> adoption at the next Council meeting on 12 April.
> >>
> >> Also, please email this list if you wish to be on the
> Working
> Group,
> >> and
> >> feel free to to put any interested constituency members or
> outside
>
> >> experts
> >> in touch with me for further information.
> >>
> >> All the best, Maria
> >> <Whois Working Group Charter2.doc>
> >
> >
> > Ross Rader
> > Director, Retail Services
> > t. 416.538.5492
> > c. 416.828.8783
> > http://www.domaindirect.com
> >
> > "To solve the problems of today, we must focus on tomorrow."
> > - Erik Nupponen
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>