Thanks Robin.
I have found a more fundamental problem with the Draft Charter.
The basic objective of the charter is defined thusly:
"The objective of the [new whois] WG is to examine the issues raised
with respect to the policy recommendations of the task force and make
recommendations concerning how those policies recommendations may be
improved to address these issues."
This is either very badly worded or an utterly outrageous attempt to
undo three years of work on the Whois TF.
Taken literally, this "objective" means that the new WG can revisit
every and any recommendation of the Task Force. (examine the issues
raised wutg respect to the policy recommendations of the task force and
make recommendations concerning how those policies may be improved...")
I would propose rewording it as follows [new words in CAPS]:
The objective of the WG 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.
>>> Robin Gross <[log in to unmask]> 4/9/2007 10:42 PM >>>
FYI:
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: [council] Draft Charter for new Whois Working Group
Date: Mon, 09 Apr 2007 19:38:16 -0700
From: Robin Gross <[log in to unmask]>
Reply-To: [log in to unmask]
Organization: IP Justice
To: Maria Farrell <[log in to unmask]>, 'Council GNSO'
<[log in to unmask]>
References: <002701c772d2$94b3f9f0$62f289c1@scarlet>
<[log in to unmask]>
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
>
>
>
>
>
|
