Fwd: [council] Reminder of recent Council decisions regarding WHOIS

[Mawaki Chango]

FYI

--- Bruce Tonkin <Bruce.Tonkin at melbourneit.com.au> wrote:

> Subject: [council] Reminder of recent Council decisions
> regarding WHOIS
> Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2007 16:01:19 +1000
> From: "Bruce Tonkin" <Bruce.Tonkin at melbourneit.com.au>
> To: "GNSO Council" <council at gnso.icann.org>
>
> Hello All,
>
> Just a reminder of previous decisions of the Council:
>
> From 12 April 2006:
>
> "The GNSO Council recommends that the WHOIS task force use the
> following
> definition:
> "The purpose of the gTLD Whois service is to provide
> information
> sufficient to contact a responsible party for a particular
> gTLD domain
> name who can resolve, or reliably pass on data to a party who
> can
> resolve, issues related to the configuration of the records
> associated
> with the domain name within a DNS nameserver."
> as a working definition to allow the task force to proceed on
> terms of
> reference (2), (3), and (4) (see:
> http://gnso.icann.org/policies/terms-of-reference.html )"
>
>
> From 28 July 2006:
>
> ""The GNSO Council notes that the WHOIS definition approved by
> the GNSO
> Council on 18 April 06, as a working definition to allow the
> WHOIS task
> force to proceed with its work, is related to the service that
> provides
> public access to some of the data collected by registrars. It
> is not a
> definition of the purpose of the data collected by the
> registrars in the
> course of registering a domain name for their customers.
>
> In response to the extensive community and Government input on
> the
> definition of the purpose of WHOIS, the GNSO Council agrees to
> undertake
> the following steps:
>
> (1) Any Council member who voted in favour of the definition
> may provide
> a brief explanation of the reason for supporting the
> resolution and
> their understanding of its meaning. An Advisory Committee that
> supports
> the current definition may also make a statement for the
> record through
> the appropriate liaison to the GNSO Council.
>
> (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.
>
> (3) The GNSO Council requests that the WHOIS task force
> continue with
> their work as specified in the terms of reference taking into
> account
> the recent input that has been provided.
>
> (4) The GNSO Council will take the Final Report (as specified
> in clause
> 9(c) of the GNSO PDP process) from the WHOIS task force after
> the task
> force finishes its work on all the terms of reference, engage
> in further
> dialogue with the Advisory Committees (including the GAC, SSAC
> and
> ALAC), and consider improving the wording of the WHOIS service
> definition so that it is broadly understandable.
>
> Note that the WHOIS Task force will produce a Task Force
> Report (as
> specified in clause 7(e) of the GNSO PDP process) later in
> 2006 that
> addresses all terms of reference. This report will be subject
> to a
> further public comment process, and the output of this public
> comment
> will be incorporated into the Final Report.
>
> Note that the previous clause (3) in the motion posted on 13
> July 2006
> that related to the purposes for collecting data is now the
> subject of a
> separate motion. "
>
>
>
> On 28 March 2007:
>
> "The GNSO Council resolves:
>
> 1) To acknowledge the completion of the Whois TF work and note
> we have
> received and discussed their report, and thank the task force
> for their
> work
>
> 2) To create a working group of affected stakeholders:
>
> - including GNSO constituency, law enforcement and community
> participants,
>
> - whose work is to be completed within 120 days
>
> - that will work to examine the issues raised with respect to
> the policy
> recommendations of the task force and make recommendations
> concerning
> how those policies may be improved to address these issues,
> namely:
>
> a. define the roles, responsibilities, and requirements of the
> operational point of contact, and what happens if they are not
> fulfilled.
>
> b. how legitimate interests will access registration data no
> longer
> published via Whois,
>
> c. whether a distinction should be made between the
> registration contact
> information published based on the nature of the registered
> name holder
> (for example, legal vs. natural persons) or its use of the
> domain name.
> "
>
>
>
>
> Regards,
> Bruce
>
>
>