Hate to sound impatient, but please check what ICANN has actually posted
before complaining about it. 

http://gnso.icann.org/issues/whois-privacy/correspondence.html 

See also the ICANN correspondence page, where -- I think for the first
time in history -- ICANN posted everything it received indiscriminately.


http://www.icann.org/correspondence/ 



>>> Mawaki Chango <[log in to unmask]> 7/17/2006 7:16 PM >>>
Questions:

Rick, what are you referring to by "This" in your first sentence
below? (All) if there is something you think is missing in the
summary provided by the staff, please let me know with specific
references.

Robert, Carlos et al. should NCUC draft a letter to Bruce to
request ICANN to make public all the inputs/letters received,
especially from the DPAs, etc. or an email from a councilor to
Bruce will do?

Ilya, if relevant, can I quote your earlier email in my
communication to the council?

Mawaki

--- "Rick W. Weingarten" <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> This was our "definition" in our note sent on June 21. While
> not at the
> level of specific language, it is at a level appropriate to
> the nature
> of the discussion at hand and specific enough to merit mention
> and
> consideration in any summary of comments. Our comments were
> sent to GAC.
> I take it they were not reflected in any discussion?
> 
> Rick
> 
> 
> Frederick W. Weingarten
> Director, Office for Information Technology Policy
> American Library Association
> 1615 New Hampshire Ave, NW
> Washington, DC  20009
> (202) 628-8410
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Non-Commercial User Constituency
> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Robert
> Guerra
> Sent: Monday, July 17, 2006 10:25 AM
> To: [log in to unmask] 
> Subject: Re: [NCUC-DISCUSS] [council] Proposed WHOIS motion
> for 20 July
> 2006
> 
> Iliya:
> 
> I know for a fact that numerous letters where sent from Data
> Protection
> Authorities (DPA) to ICANN. If they were sent directly to GAC,
> the
> Board, or GNSO - that i don' t know. I do know they were sent
> and
> received.
> 
> I would recommend that NCUC formally ask about the status of
> the DPA
> letters and if they could be made public. Otherwise, it would
> appear
> that the Intellectually property lobby is the only group who
> has
> submitted inputs - however that is clearly not the case.
> 
> If ICANN and/or the GNSO is unwilling to help - then, the next
> step
> would be to make the fact known to the DPA's.
> 
> regards
> 
> Robert
> 
> 
> On 17-Jul-06, at 6:58 AM, Iliya Nickelt wrote:
> 
> > The amount of lobbying is frightening and doomed to rais my
> prejudices
> 
> > of the US industry and it's close ties to government. Where
> are the 
> > comments about about the value of data protection, of
> freedom?
> > I can only ask the council members to defend the decision
> that a solid
> 
> > majority of the GNSO favoured before the pressure started.
> It is not 
> > up to ICANN to set the law for the international need of an
> imprint --
> 
> > even if the whois service has been that in the past.
> Governments may 
> > do that if they want, but not ICANN. It was about time that
> this issue
> 
> > was resolved.
> >
> > --- Maria Farrell <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> >> Not all input received explicitly interprets the
> definition. For this
> 
> >> reason, a considerable number of inputs are not reflected
> in the 
> >> summary.
> > So comments raising data protection issues failed to
> interpret the 
> > whois definition, I guess. Has ICANN staff decided already?
> >
> > not so objective today,
> > 	--iliya
> >
> >
> >> --- Maria Farrell <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> >>> In response to Bruce's proposed motion on Whois, section
> (2);
> >>>
> >>> "(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."
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Please find attached a table that summarises
> interpretations of the 
> >>> definition of the purpose of Whois ("Formulation 1"). This
> 
> >>> information is captured from the inputs received on this
> issue from 
> >>> March to June of this year.
> >>>
> >>> Not all input received explicitly interprets the
> definition.
> >>> For this
> >>> reason, a considerable number of inputs are not reflected
> in the 
> >>> summary.
>