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

[Robin Gross]

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: 	Re: [council] Draft Charter for new Whois Working Group
Date: 	Wed, 11 Apr 2007 11:49:54 -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>
<461AF898.7030301 at ipjustice.org>



NCUC amends this motion to include one additional point of clarification
that is necessary to keep this working group focused.

The objective proposed in the draft charter is badly worded because it
would allow for each and every recommendation of the previous whois task
force to be revisited ("examine the issues raised with respect to the
policy recommendation of the task force and make recommendations
concerning how those policies may be improved...).

This new working group is not meant to "undo" the three years of work on
the whois task force.  Therefore it is important that we keep this new
working group on track by more clearly stating the objective.

NCUC proposes to amend the basic objective [new words in CAPS] as follows:

"The objective of the working group 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
IN A WAY TO ADDRESS THOSE ISSUES."

Thank you,
Robin

Robin Gross wrote:

> 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
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>