Philip, --- Philip Sheppard <philip.sheppard@aim.be> wrote:
Bruce, Ross, Mawaki, Robin, fellow Councillors, thank you for your responses to the proposed compromise wording.
snip>>> The footnote to the compromise definition did state "Note: This definition is explicitly silent on questions of subsequent access to data or data publication". In other words, the assumption in the compromise formulation is to separate the issues of "purpose of data" and "access".
And I heard you, and asked when replying to your proposal of the redefined F#2, quote:
3. The definition is silent on questions of subsequent access to data or data publication. If I understand well, are you saying that your proposed definition of the purpose for which the data is collected does not imply that the WHOIS data must remain publicly accessible? Unquote.
But not surprisingly, I haven't gotten any answer from you. It turns out to be that, whether you like it or not, the objective of this policy development and TF is to address the issue of the WHOIS data being made public, as any one can clearly see from the three points of the ToR recalled by Ross: 1. Figure out if the current data being published is appropriate (whether it should be broadened or narrowed) 2. Figure out if all of this data should be made public. 3. Specify how data that is not being made public can be accessed. Even if you ONLY take the first one as you're doing to say you agree on it, the sub-question in brackets ("whether it should be broadened or narrowed"), which is the continuation of the main question, indicates that it is about figuring out how much data needs to be _public_, and how much needs not. And Bruce also clarified this earlier, as the "heart of the issue" stated in Terms of reference no. 3: "Determine what data collected should be available for public access in the context of the purpose of WHOIS. Determine how to access data that is not available for public access." And I seem to understand, when he writes: "we need to move forward [my addition: after the vote] to focus on a solution," he's referring to the second sentence in the quote right above. So, last questions for you Philip: 1. Do you think the question of determining whether the WHOIS data must be publicly available or not (as your refined proposal remains silent on this, while it was the job of the TF to find out), so do you think it is a question the GNSO Council should not bother asking? 2. Do you think it ICANN's _mission_ to cater for law enforcement, just because there might be unlawful deeds over the Net? 3. Don't you think the law provides, or can provide, enough itself with the means of its own enforcement, so that it doesn't need ICANN to take on the mission of a surrogate for law enforcement? Talk to you tomorrow, Mawaki
One side seems to say: Registrar agreement is a given truth - now lets define purpose then discuss other issues. The other side is saying: Define purpose - discuss access - discuss other issues - implement in Registrar agreement as required.
I suspect this lies at the root of the dissonance on both the TF and now Council. It is a key dissonance to overcome.
A vote on Wednesday will not be a solution. Without resolving the above it will be a hollow victory for either side.
Philip