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.