![](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/ef628ebe51616a0ecf62623f7f0774a7.jpg?s=120&d=mm&r=g)
Ross, you cannot honestly call this a 'proposed amendment' to our motion. It has nothing to do with our motion. You are proposing that ICANN remove all existing contractual provisions regarding WHOIS, on the basis that a consensus WHOIS policy has not been achieved to date. That is the first time I have ever heard someone suggest that lack of consensus as to policy to change the status quo, would lead to elimination of the status quo -- and thus in this matter, elimination of an open and accessible WHOIS database. I am quite surprised to read such a proposal for the first time today, and surprised that you did not even mention it for discussion on our GNSO call today, nor in the past 7 years of debate as far as I know. I recall you stating at our GNSO Council meeting that kicked off this WG, that you would see lack of consensus as meaning we carry on with the status quo. Apparently your statements were disingenuous or your thinking has changed dramatically since. It now seems clear that your long and hard battling on this issue has been designed to eliminate ANY cost or obligation among registrars re WHOIS, rather than to mitigate any 'increased' cost above the status quo, as you have so frequently argued. These contractual provisions have existed for a very long time, for very good reasons, and should not be considered for potential elimination without a PDP designed to analyze that potential outcome. As far as I know, it simply has never been proposed or discussed that we would eliminate WHOIS altogether, so it would be ridiculous for Council to consider that as an option now. Mike Rodenbaugh -----Original Message----- From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Ross Rader Sent: Thursday, August 30, 2007 8:20 AM To: Council GNSO Subject: [council] Proposed amendment to BCUC motion I am not sure if this made it to the list or not, but this was intended to serve as an amendment to the proposed BCUC motion; Whereas; 1. The GNSO Council accepts the WG report and appreciates the efforts made by WG participants and ICANN staff in preparing this report. 2. The GNSO Council does not consider the WG report as sufficiently demonstrating consensus or agreement on substantive policy proposals. 3. The GNSO Council considers that the lack of consensus demonstrated through this open and inclusive working group is representative of the lack of agreement on key issues in this area of policy. 4. The GNSO Council recognizes that there is no standing consensus policy concerning the management of the Whois service and data provided to the public through that service by ICANN's contracted commercial operators, the registries and registrars. save and except the Whois Data Reminder Policy and the Whois Marketing Restriction Policy. Therefore; Be it resolved; a) that the GNSO Council concludes the current PDP on Whois. b) graciously thanks all of the volunteers, consultants, staff and others who have participated in the GNSO's examination of Whois policy over the last four years. c) that the GNSO Council makes no specific policy recommendation to the ICANN board at this time concerning Whois or related policy. d) that the GNSO Council recommends to the ICANN staff and Board of Directors that due to the lack of consensus on issues in this area that current contractual requirements concerning Whois for registries, registrars and registrants that are not supported by consensus policy be eliminated from the current operating agreements between ICANN and its contracted parties until such time that consensus policy in this area has been developed. -- Regards, Ross Rader Director, Retail Services Tucows Inc. http://www.domaindirect.com t. 416.538.5492