Hi I am just following up the GNSO Council meeting and sharing (below) the proposed NCSG amendment to Wolfs Motion on WHOIS access. Regards Joy Liddicoat From: Joy Liddicoat [mailto:joy@apc.org] Sent: Friday, 8 June 2012 8:16 a.m. To: 'KnobenW@telekom.de' Subject: RE: [council] Motion Hi Wolf - *offlist* Apologies for the late heads up but some messages came in overnight (NZ time) to me about this motion. Wed like to propose a friendly amendment to reflect NCSG concerns for policy on access to WHOIS data to be consistent with public law human rights standards. Our proposal is for a very simple addition Existing Motion: THEREFORE BE IT, Resolved, the GNSO Council recommends that the issue of WHOIS access (to ensure that WHOIS data is accessible in an appropriately reliable, enforceable, and consistent fashion) is included in the RAA Policy Development Process when it commences. Resolved, the GNSO Council will review by end of September, 2012, whether the RAA PDP has commenced and included this issue or whether alternative approaches should be pursued. Proposed: To insert after the word fashion the words which does not violate freedom of expression, privacy and related rights so it would read: (to ensure that WHOIS data is accessible in an appropriately reliable, enforceable, and consistent fashion which does not violate freedom of expression, privacy and related rights) I will raise it in the meeting but just wanted to check in with you about whether you would regard this as friendly Kind regards Joy Liddicoat From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of KnobenW@telekom.de Sent: Thursday, 7 June 2012 11:58 p.m. To: jonathan.robinson@ipracon.com; council@gnso.icann.org Subject: AW: [council] Motion Hi Jonathan, 1. it was the RAP WGs intention rather than mine to "determine what additional research and processes may be needed to ensure that WHOIS data is accessible in an appropriately reliable, enforceable, and consistent fashion", and that's still valid. The council so far took several actions, e.g. allocating the item to the WhoIs survey working team. This team just didn't see the item being in its scope. That doesn't mean the item - as intended by the RAG WG - is finished. So the council should search for different approach e.g. covering it with the RAA PDP. 2. It should be discussed whether the RAA PDP is the right way to do so taking also into consideration the respective timeline. Any purposeful alternativ suggestions welcome! Best regards Wolf-Ulrich _____ Von: Jonathan Robinson [mailto:jonathan.robinson@ipracon.com] Gesendet: Donnerstag, 7. Juni 2012 10:32 An: Knoben, Wolf-Ulrich; council@gnso.icann.org Betreff: RE: [council] Motion Hi Wolf-Ulrich, This is something that we discussed at our SG meeting today. We are expect to ask for a deferral in part because the situation with the RAA still contains many moving parts. There are two key areas which we would very much appreciate further clarification and detail through discussion or on the list as follows: 1. As clear as possible definition or specification on what you intend to achieve with the WHOIS access 2. A better understanding of what is meant by the reference to the RAA PDP. This seems to imply that the entire RAA may be the subject of a PDP whereas clearly there are parts of the RAA that are and parts that are not subject to the PDP. Many thanks for any comment or input you are able to provide either on list or in the meeting itself. Best wishes, Jonathan From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of KnobenW@telekom.de Sent: 30 May 2012 16:31 To: council@gnso.icann.org Subject: [council] Motion On behalf of the ISPCP constituency I'd like to introduce the motion attached to the 07 June council meeting. Mit freundlichen Grüßen Best regards Wolf-Ulrich