Right on, in my view, Kathryn!

rgds

--c.a.

[log in to unmask] wrote:
>  
> 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:[log in to unmask]] 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 Chango (may be withdrawn if Doria motion above is  approved)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
> 

-- 
Carlos A. Afonso
diretor de planejamento
Rits - Rede de Informações para o Terceiro Setor
***************************************************************
Projeto Sacix - Apoio técnico a iniciativas de inclusão digital
com software livre, mantido pela Rits em colaboração com o
Coletivo Digital. Para mais informações:
www.sacix.org.br   www.rits.org.br   www.coletivodigital.org.br
***************************************************************