Urgent: your response needed

[KathrynKL at AOL.COM]

All,
I wanted to share a few more thoughts on why I think this is a good  motion,
and some background on its introducer.

After several years on the Whois Working Group, I came to have great  respect
for Ross Rader of Tucows, the Motion's introducer.  Ross and Tucows  are
based out of Canada. Tucows cares deeply about its clients (including
noncommercial users and individuals) and deeply about the Internet.  It  also very much
wants to follow the laws of its country, including the data  protection laws of
Canada.  Being put in a position where the ICANN  Registrar contract on Whois
violates the data protection laws of Canada is not a  good place for Tucows.

That is not to say that Tucows would protect all registrant data
unconditionally, but at the Vancouver conference we heard from the regional  telephone
company and the policy director described the "due process"  requirements for
the disclosure of personal data (the high legal standards set  up for when and
how personal data can be disclosed in the case of an illegality  or emergency).
 I think these are rules Tucows would follow given the  opportunity.

As I read the Whois report, and Norbert's reports of what the Chairman (a
founding member of Intellectual Property Constituency put in) inserted without
agreement of the group, I completely agree with Ross' motion. We don't need
more  meetings.  We need a precedent for Whois that says that absent consensus
(general agreement broadly across constituencies), ICANN contracts cannot be
used to force registrants to give up fundamental rights, including rights of
fair use, privacy and freedom of expression.

This issue that has taken too many years of people's lives (including  mine).
It is time to roll up the carpet and set a good principle for future  ICANN
contracts at the same time.  Here's to Ross, and the motion's second  Mawaki,
for a creative and critical next step.

Best,
Kathy Kleiman

-----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Chango (may be withdrawn if Doria motion above is  approved)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.








************************************** See what's new at http://www.aol.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncuc.org/pipermail/ncuc-discuss/attachments/20070920/07001aa6/attachment.html>