Hello All, As everyone knows I work with a number of registry operators and I have been a big proponent of the RSEP. Unfortunately, I think ICANN has fallen woefully short of the representations that it made to contacting parties in negotiating this provisions several years ago as it has not provided the predictability originally promised to the registries. More disturbing is that ICANN seeks to further retreat from these previous representations in light of the new proposed registry template agreement. That being said, instead of just repeating our position from four years ago, perhaps we could undertake some fact based research. Specifically I would try to identify what were the potential harms that lead to the BC's recommendation to oppose the TelNic's RSEP request. We should then see if those harms came to fruition. If the harms we feared became a reality, this would reinforce our previously position and we could politely remind ICANN that we were right. However, if our fears were unfounded, repeating the same position in light of unfounded fears makes us look less credible. Just my two cents. Best regards, Michael From: owner-bc-gnso@icann.org [mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org] On Behalf Of Elisa Cooper Sent: Tuesday, January 24, 2012 2:34 PM To: Marilyn Cade; bc - GNSO list Subject: [bc-gnso] RE: .CAT WHOIS Proposed Changes - call for public comments To summarize the proposed change, the .Cat registry is requesting that provisions are made to WHOIS requirements in order to comply with EU privacy laws. If approved, WHOIS records for companies, businesses, partnerships, non-profit entities, associations, etc. would remain publicly available. However, domain name registrants that are individuals would be given the option to elect whether or not their WHOIS records would be made publicly available. A similar request was submitted by the .Tel registry in 2007. In response to the .Tel request, the BC recommended that 1) the request should not be handled as a "proposal for a new registry service" but instead should follow the "ICANN Procedure for Handling WHOIS Conflicts with Privacy Law", and 2) should the proposal not be withdrawn and re-directed as above, ICANN must reject the proposal, as the proposal fails to adequately balance the needs of all stakeholders and affected parties who use the WHOIS. Regardless of the BC's comments, the .Tel request was ultimately approved. I assume that our position still stands, and that we believe that this .Cat request should not be handled as a "proposal for a new registry service", and that if it is not treated in that way, that we would ask ICANN to reject the proposal, as not every registrant (even though the majority likely are) is subject to EU law. Best, Elisa Elisa Cooper Director of Product Marketing MarkMonitor 208 389-5779 PH From: Marilyn Cade [mailto:marilynscade@hotmail.com] Sent: Saturday, January 21, 2012 8:48 AM To: Elisa Cooper; bc - GNSO list Subject: .CAT WHOIS Proposed Changes - call for public comments Elisa Cooper, the BC WHOIS Rapporteur, or Steve DelBianco, V.Chair, Policy Coordination, may offer additional comments. The Chair's purpose is to forward to all BC members. Like all members, I look to our Rapporteur for WHOIS, supported by our Vice Chair, Policy Coordination, to advise. However, for any new members, WHOIS is a key priority for BC. Marilyn Cade, BC Chair http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-20jan12-en.htm .CAT WHOIS Proposed Changes Forum Announcement: Comment Period Opens on Date: 20 January2012 Categories/Tags: Contracted Party Agreements Purpose (Brief): ICANN is opening today the public comment period for the Fundacio puntCAT's, request to change its Whois according to EU data protection legislation. The public comment period will be closed on 3 March 2012. The .cat registry, submitted a Registry Service Evaluation Process (RSEP) on August 2011. At this time, ICANN has conducted a preliminary review in accordance with the Registry Services Evaluation Policy and process set forth at http://www.icann.org/registries/rsep/rsep.html. ICANN's preliminary review (based on the information provided) did not identify any significant competition, security, or stability issues. The implementation of the request requires an amendment to the .cat Registry Agreement signed 23 September 2005. This public forum requests comments regarding the proposed amendment. Public Comment Box Link: http://www.icann.org/en/public-comment/cat-whois-changes-18jan12-en.htm