Urgent: your response needed

[Mawaki Chango]

Alan,

I'm not sure whether this will help, but I try: What the chair
(Milton) calls to vote "agree/disagree" on, is precisely the
motion with the text below - or even more precisely, whether
NCUC support the idea to move it forward in any event, and
submit it to the GNSO council vote.

Some, like Carlos, called it proposal, some other may call it
resolution proposal (which Carlos may have meant) or resolution
project, but it is the same Motion #3 below. So our vote here at
NCUC is about what to request the GNSO council to do with it.

Note, I'm cc'ing you this in case you're already in lurk mode :)
regarding this list.
Thanks for your earlier answer to my question & comment.

Mawaki
P.S. I'm glad to hear that there are registrars who don't charge
fee for keeping the individual registrant's data private. Maybe
there should be more of them to make a difference in the policy
discussions. You may want to note, however, that if the Whois
access requirement expires from the registrar contract, those
registrars you're referring to should not be impacted anyway.

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

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Non-Commercial User Constituency
> [mailto:NCUC-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU] On Behalf Of Alan Levin
>
> >Please point me to this resolution. I looked for 15 minutes
> and then
> >gave up.
>
> Sure, apologies, it was appended to the end of my back on
> Sunday:
>
> Motion #3 conditional motion offered by Ross Rader, seconded
> by Mawaki
> Chango (may be withdrawn if Doria motion above is approved)
>
> Whereas;
>
> (i) The GNSO Council has considered the reports of the WHOIS
> Working
> Group and WHOIS Task Force, and;
> (ii) That the GNSO Council vote on resolution [XXXXX] failed
> to produce
> supermajority or majority support for the recommendations of
> the report
> of the Task Force, and;
> (iii) The GNSO Council considers that the results of this vote
> signifies
> the continued lack of consensus on the key issues and possible
> solutions
> to those issues, both within the Council, the GNSO and between
> key
> stakeholder groups, and;
> (iv) The GNSO Council recognizes that there is no standing
> consensus
> policy concerning the management of the WHOIS service and data
> provided
> to the public through that service by ICANN's contracted
> commercial
> operators, the registries and registrars, save and except the
> WHOIS Data
> Reminder Policy and the WHOIS Marketing Restriction Policy,
> and;
> (v) That significant policy must have the support of the
> Internet and
> DNS community and without that support, those policies cannot
> be
> reasonably implemented or enforced.
>
> Therefore be it resolved;
>
> (i) That, with regret, the GNSO Council advises the ICANN
> staff and
> Board of Directors of the lack of general consensus on the key
> issues
> and solutions pertaining to gTLD WHOIS, and;
> (ii) That due to this lack of consensus the GNSO Council
> recommends that
> the Board consider "sunsetting" the existing current
> contractual
> requirements concerning WHOIS for registries, registrars and
> registrants
> that are not supported by consensus policy by removing these
> unsupported
> provisions from the current operating agreements between ICANN
> and its
> contracted parties, and;
> (iii) That these provisions be sunset no later than the end of
> the 2008
> ICANN Annual General Meeting and;
> (iv) That such provisions will remain sunset until such time
> that
> consensus policy in this area has been developed to replace
> the sunset
> provisions, at which point they will be eliminated or
> modified.
>
> Milton Mueller, Professor
> Syracuse University
> School of Information Studies
> ------------------------------
> Internet Governance Project:
> http://internetgovernance.org
> ------------------------------
> The Convergence Center:
> http://www.digitalconvergence.org
>