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.