Forwarding the second letter sent by AIPLA today for further clarification: == From: Michael K. Kirk [mailto:mkirk@aipla.org] Sent: Wednesday, June 21, 2006 12:20 PM To: 'Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au' Cc: 'vint@google.com'; 'sharil@cmc.gov.my' Subject: FW: [gnso-dow123] Regarding Letter from American Intellectual Property Law Association Dear Mr. Tonkin, Thank you for your observations regarding the comments of the American Intellectual Property Law Association on the GNSO Council vote on the Formulation 1 definition of the purpose of the WHOIS service. Please find attached our reply to your observations. Regards, Mike Kirk -----Original Message----- From: Bruce Tonkin [mailto:Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au] Sent: 21 June 2006 03:33 To: Council GNSO Subject: [council] Regarding Letter from American Intellectual Property Law Association Hello All, I have read the letter from the American Intellectual Property Law Association. I don't understand how the letter relates to the formulations 1 or 2. It seems that members of the community have made pre-mature judgements on the eventual outcomes of the WHOIS work. The letter raises issues about the importance of the data, and the need for access to that data by law enforcement and other legitimate parties. This seems entirely consistent with the current terms of reference of the WHOIS task force. I have sent the following reply to clarify that there are no changes in collected data, nor in the requirement for that data to be accurate. The more important work has yet to be done, which is developing better access controls. Regards, Bruce Tonkin Dear Mr Kirk, I will pass on your letter to the GNSO Council and the WHOIS task force. I will note however that the GNSO Council does believe that its decision is consistent with your requirements below. The decision makes no change to the requirement to collect the data or the requirement that the data must be accurate. Thus the data will still be available to prove any IP infringement. In fact one of the objectives of improving controls on access to data is that it will lead to higher data accuracy as registrants will be more comfortable in providing their true contact information. 1. A pattern of behavior that can lead to an inference of bad faith which, under the UDRP, can result in the transfer of a domain name from a bad faith registrant is frequently only provable through WHOIS; 2. Unchecked IP infringement undermines business viability and technical stability and could result in Internet fragmentation; 3. Accurate and available information is essential for law enforcement in crimes including spamming, denial of service attacks, identity theft and account fraud, hate literature, terrorism and child pornography; 4. The requirement to provide accurate contact and identity information acts as a deterrent to trademark infringement, copyright infringement, cybersquatting, phishing, typosquatting and other IP cyber infringements and facilitates enforcement of IP rights. The objective to make up-to-date and accurate WHOIS information available to all who have a legitimate need to obtain such information is consistent with the aims of the GNSO. The current work is focussed on considering methods for access control that ensure that only those with a legitimate need have access. This work has not yet reached any recommendations. Your letter does not seem to explain why the American Intellectual Property Law Association thinks formulation 1 is inconsistent with those aims. Regards, Bruce Tonkin