17.12.08 GNSO WHOIS Discussion

[William Drake]

Thanks Norbert.

We just clarified that constituencies can revise their scoring prior
to the final call.  So in keeping with the thrust of your history and
absent any input to the contrary, I have asked that our ratings be
scored as zeros across the board.  So now we are at least on the map
and not holding things up.  If anyone thinks it advisable to
reconsider and maybe increase the values on the relatively pro-
citizen hypotheses let us know, otherwise it rests where it is.

Best,

Bill


On Dec 17, 2008, at 7:05 PM, Norbert Klein wrote:

> On Thursday, 18 December 2008 00:24:19 William Drake wrote:
>> Hello,
>>
>> Is anyone else planning on being on the WHOIS call that commences in
>> less than an hour, 18:00 UTC?
>>
>
> Hi Bill,
>
> I am sorry to be so late - back from travel and still overwhelmed
> with work
> backlog.
>
> I am sure you got this mail:
>
> From: "Tim Ruiz" <tim at godaddy.com>
>   To: "Council GNSO" <council at gnso.icann.org>
>   Date: 16.12.2008 23:43
>
> At the end he says:
>
> "Comment of RrC: The RrC continues to maintain that no studies
> should be
> pursued. We have over six years of history 							
> on this topic. It was clear through those years that the
> stakeholder groups
> were entrenched in their views and positions									
> and there is no evidence or any other indication that any of these
> studies
> will change that."
>
> It was probably six years ago, that we were already informed that
> now "everything is clear for WHOIS except one point where there is a
> controversy: the purpose of the WHOIS data."
>
> This situation is in Tim's comment also: we have discussed things
> to the end,
> we once voted - majority, not only NCUC - that the WHOIS process
> has looked
> into all aspects and now we decide - and after the GNSO Council had
> decided,
> the process was rolled up again.
>
> In the NCUC, we have basically maintained through all these years
> that the
> WHOIS data have been created with a clear purpose: to identify the
> person/institution who is the holder of a domain - for technical
> contact and
> billing etc. That was our general position over the years.
>
> All additions are "alien" to this - there are procedures for law
> enforcement
> and Intellectual Property concerns - technical and legal - and in
> he NCUC we
> used to say that ICANN (as also ICANN's statute says) is for the
> stability of
> the network. So no burdening with alien tasks - for which there are
> state
> laws and regulations.
>
> I think to go along with the statement by Tim Ruiz is historically and
> contentwise the NCUC majority position.
>
>
> Norbert								
>
>
> --
> Phnom Penh/Cambodia
> PGP key-id 0x0016D0A9
>
> If you want to know what is going on in Cambodia, please visit us
> regularly -
> you can find something new every day:
>
> http://cambodiamirror.wordpress.com (English)
> http://kanhchoksangkum.wordpress.com (Khmer)
>
>

***********************************************************
William J. Drake
Senior Associate
Centre for International Governance
Graduate Institute of International and
   Development Studies
Geneva, Switzerland
william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch
New book: Governing Global Electronic Networks,
http://tinyurl.com/5mh9jj
***********************************************************

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncuc.org/pipermail/ncuc-discuss/attachments/20081217/f2c749a4/attachment.html>