Carlos:
the constituency statements are incorporated into the issue reports drafted by staff. E.g., the Whois issue report contains either a summary or a verbatim incorporation of our position paper. 

Dr. Milton Mueller
Syracuse University School of Information Studies
http://www.digital-convergence.org
http://www.internetgovernance.org

>>> Carlos Afonso <[log in to unmask]> 07/17/06 9:16 PM >>>
Does ICANN also publish all statements received from its internal 
constituencies? Actually, I should ask: delivering a formal statement to 
GNSO implies publication or should we explicitly ask for it? None of our 
statements are published in http://gnso.icann.org/issues/whois-privacy.

--c.a.

Milton Mueller wrote:
> 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.
> 
> 

-- 

Carlos A. Afonso
diretor de planejamento
Rits -- http://www.rits.org.br

********************************************
* Projeto Sacix -- Pacote Linux orientado  *
* a projetos de inclusão digital com       *
* software livre e de código aberto,       *
* mantido pela Rits em colaboração com o   *
* Coletivo Digital.                        *
* Saiba mais: http://www.sacix.org.br      *
********************************************