> The objective of the WG is to examine the IMPLEMENTATION > issues raised > BY the recommendED OPOC PROPOSAL of the task force, and make > recommendations concerning how THE OPOC PROPOSAL may be > IMPLEMENTED. Maybe adding: "...in a way to address those issues." -? Btw, I'm hoping to be on the call on Thursday, but would be nice/easier if we were 2, or even better, 3. Mawaki --- Milton Mueller <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > Thanks Robin. > > I have found a more fundamental problem with the Draft > Charter. > > The basic objective of the charter is defined thusly: > > "The objective of the [new whois] WG is to examine the issues > raised > with respect to the policy recommendations of the task force > and make > recommendations concerning how those policies recommendations > may be > improved to address these issues." > > This is either very badly worded or an utterly outrageous > attempt to > undo three years of work on the Whois TF. > > Taken literally, this "objective" means that the new WG can > revisit > every and any recommendation of the Task Force. (examine the > issues > raised wutg respect to the policy recommendations of the task > force and > make recommendations concerning how those policies may be > improved...") > > I would propose rewording it as follows [new words in CAPS]: > > The objective of the WG is to examine the IMPLEMENTATION > issues raised > BY the recommendED OPOC PROPOSAL of the task force, and make > recommendations concerning how THE OPOC PROPOSAL may be > IMPLEMENTED. > > >>> Robin Gross <[log in to unmask]> 4/9/2007 10:42 PM >>> > FYI: > > -------- Original Message -------- > Subject: Re: [council] Draft Charter for new Whois Working > Group > Date: Mon, 09 Apr 2007 19:38:16 -0700 > From: Robin Gross <[log in to unmask]> > Reply-To: [log in to unmask] > Organization: IP Justice > To: Maria Farrell <[log in to unmask]>, 'Council GNSO' > <[log in to unmask]> > References: <002701c772d2$94b3f9f0$62f289c1@scarlet> > <[log in to unmask]> > > > > In considering this WG charter April 12, NCUC moves to amend > it as > follows: > > Under section 4b, > Change the sentence "Determine how third parties may access > registration data that is no longer available for unrestricted > public > query-based access for legitimate activities." > > to... > > Determine which third parties, under which conditions, may > access > registration data that is no longer available for unrestricted > public > query-based access." > > Also, strike the 8 paragraphs beginning "The GAC policy > principles...." > > Reason: > The opening sentence of 4b reads as if ANY third party will be > given > access to the data for any activity. But this begs the policy > question > that the WG must answer, which is WHICH third parties (e.g., > just law > enforcement agencies, or others) and under WHAT CONDITIONS. > > As for the second change, having discussed this with GAC > members, the > objections of the EU to the language was resolved by stating > that some > of the ACTIVITIES that Whois data was used for was legitimate, > but > this > did not necessarily mean that ACCESS TO THE PRIVATE DATA was > also > legitimate. Also, the Whois task force has already determined > that the > purpose of Whois does not include many of these activities, so > there > is > no obligation on ICANN to make the data available for those > activities. > > > Thank you, > Robin > > > Ross Rader wrote: > > > Maria - > > > > Many thanks for turning this around so quickly. The draft is > > > generally great. I'd like to suggest that the section > entitled "work > > > plan" uses the relevant text of the resolution instead of > the > > language currently employed. In a couple of places, the work > plan > > outlines a much greater scope of work than that contemplated > by the > > > resolutions, specifically; > > > > 4.a proposed expands the examination of the definition of > the roles > > > to all contacts, whereas the resolution only sought to > examine the > > definition of the operational point of contact. > > > > 4.b proposed requests the WG to determine how third parties > may > > access unpublished data for legitimate activities, whereas > the > > resolution only seeks to describe how legitimate interests > will > > access unpublished data. The difference seems small, but the > proposed > > > language requests the creation of a comprehensive proposal > that > > describes an access mechanism for a long list of "legitimate > > > activities" rather than a proposal that describes an access > mechanism > > > for use by legitimate interests. > > > > 4.c proposed additionally requests the WG to determine how > the > > distinctions should be made whereas the Council resolution > only > > sought to discover if the distinctions in question were > possible to > > > make. > > > > In each of these cases, it might just make the most sense to > rely on > > > the text of the original resolution as ratified by Council > to ensure > > > that we don't lose clarity on our actual objectives. > > > > Second, a question. Concerning the issue of defining > agreement. When > > > it comes to understanding what constitutes "broad > agreement", will > > this be measured on the views shared by individuals or > interest > groups? > > > > Finally, in order to ensure that we're all working from the > same > > foundation, it might make sense to specifically include the > policy > > recommendations of the task force in the document itself, > either as a > > > summary, or an annex that we can easily refer to. The policy > > > recommendations that I am referring to are included in > section 4 of > > > the report, as per the clarifications I made during our > discuss at > > the recent Council meeting. > > > > Thanks again, > > > > -ross > > > > > > > > On 30-Mar-07, at 2:51 PM, Maria Farrell wrote: > > > >> Dear Council members, > >> > >> Attached is the draft Charter that sets out the statement > of work > and > >> working methodologies of the Whois Working Group, created > by > >> resolution of > >> the GNSO Council in Lisbon, on 28 March. > >> > >> Please review it and note that it will be an agenda item > for > >> discussion and > >> adoption at the next Council meeting on 12 April. > >> > >> Also, please email this list if you wish to be on the > Working > Group, > >> and > >> feel free to to put any interested constituency members or > outside > > >> experts > >> in touch with me for further information. > >> > >> All the best, Maria > >> <Whois Working Group Charter2.doc> > > > > > > Ross Rader > > Director, Retail Services > > t. 416.538.5492 > > c. 416.828.8783 > > http://www.domaindirect.com > > > > "To solve the problems of today, we must focus on tomorrow." > > - Erik Nupponen > > > > > > > > > > >