Interpretation of whois purpose
Hi, Ever since we voted for the whois purpose, there have been varying interpretations of what we meant when we voted. These extend from Bruce's explanation, if i understand it correctly, that there was no difference between the two formulations to my understanding that there was a fundamental difference between the formulations. While I understood that Bruce's personal belief today was his belief even at the time of the vote, I do not believe that it ever became the GNSO's position. For the most part, the fact that we had a split vote across the two formulations is enough for me to conclude that the GNSO council as a body, felt that there was a difference between the two positions; one was seen as more restrictive then the other or perhaps one was seen as more expansive then the other. My interpretation of:
issues related to the configuration of the records associated with the domain name within a DNS nameserver.
is that is covers any technical or operational issues that may be related to the name. I do not agree that it extends to:
... , intellectual property, consumer protection, SPAM, fraud etc all result from the configuration of a DNS record
The definition makes no constraints on the types of issues as was announced as the GSNO position during the GAC meeting. I believe that this is inaccurate as an expression of the GSNO's position and interpretation of the chosen purpose of whois. I understand that it may be the intention of some registrars and registries to behave as if that is what it means, but that is not the same as saying that this is what the council believes it means. I also believe that using this as a definition is similar to saying that 'in the beginning there was the configuration record' and all things emanate from it.
Not only do I believe it is an inaccurate expression of the significance of the council vote, it is my belief that to extend the definition this way is tantamount to making ICANN a de-facto legislative and law enforcement agency. And I think that is road we should not follow. The mission of ICANN is technical and operational and the policy related to those technical and operational activities, and not legislative or law enforcement. And while ICANN and all of its constituencies must obey the law, all the laws not just some of the laws and both national and international law and treaty, it is not in the position to make law or to enforce law. As was recognized in the earlier GSNO resolution regarding adherence to national laws, it is up to nations to define what is allowed and what is proscribed, and it is up to national law to define the nature of lawful access to the information contained in the configuration records. The balance of lawful access to information with privacy and consumer protection is too complex for the GNSO/ICANN to resolve, especially since that balance differs among the nations. We should leave legislation to national legislatures and international law making bodies. And we should leave the law enforcement to the plethora of police forces that are already chartered throughout the world. ICANN should not be in the business of deciding what we do or don't give to the police - they can and will define that through national and international law. a.
Avri I appreciate you clearly stating what this means for you. I'm beginning to think it would have been a great help if we'd all written down exactly what we thought the interpretations were before the vote. Maybe then we wouldn't be in this situation! Unfortunately over the years that the task force has struggled along, positions hardened and as we've seen from recent exchanges on the mailing list even reasoned and rationale dialogue has become difficult. We should all learn from this experience and make sure we don't get in to this situation again. Tony ________________________________ From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org on behalf of Avri Doria Sent: Tue 27/06/2006 12:33 To: GNSO Council Subject: [council] Interpretation of whois purpose Hi, Ever since we voted for the whois purpose, there have been varying interpretations of what we meant when we voted. These extend from Bruce's explanation, if i understand it correctly, that there was no difference between the two formulations to my understanding that there was a fundamental difference between the formulations. While I understood that Bruce's personal belief today was his belief even at the time of the vote, I do not believe that it ever became the GNSO's position. For the most part, the fact that we had a split vote across the two formulations is enough for me to conclude that the GNSO council as a body, felt that there was a difference between the two positions; one was seen as more restrictive then the other or perhaps one was seen as more expansive then the other. My interpretation of:
issues related to the configuration of the records associated with the domain name within a DNS nameserver.
is that is covers any technical or operational issues that may be related to the name. I do not agree that it extends to:
... , intellectual property, consumer protection, SPAM, fraud etc all result from the configuration of a DNS record
The definition makes no constraints on the types of issues as was announced as the GSNO position during the GAC meeting. I believe that this is inaccurate as an expression of the GSNO's position and interpretation of the chosen purpose of whois. I understand that it may be the intention of some registrars and registries to behave as if that is what it means, but that is not the same as saying that this is what the council believes it means. I also believe that using this as a definition is similar to saying that 'in the beginning there was the configuration record' and all things emanate from it.
Not only do I believe it is an inaccurate expression of the significance of the council vote, it is my belief that to extend the definition this way is tantamount to making ICANN a de-facto legislative and law enforcement agency. And I think that is road we should not follow. The mission of ICANN is technical and operational and the policy related to those technical and operational activities, and not legislative or law enforcement. And while ICANN and all of its constituencies must obey the law, all the laws not just some of the laws and both national and international law and treaty, it is not in the position to make law or to enforce law. As was recognized in the earlier GSNO resolution regarding adherence to national laws, it is up to nations to define what is allowed and what is proscribed, and it is up to national law to define the nature of lawful access to the information contained in the configuration records. The balance of lawful access to information with privacy and consumer protection is too complex for the GNSO/ICANN to resolve, especially since that balance differs among the nations. We should leave legislation to national legislatures and international law making bodies. And we should leave the law enforcement to the plethora of police forces that are already chartered throughout the world. ICANN should not be in the business of deciding what we do or don't give to the police - they can and will define that through national and international law. a.
tony.ar.holmes@bt.com wrote:
Avri
I appreciate you clearly stating what this means for you.
I'm beginning to think it would have been a great help if we'd all written down exactly what we thought the interpretations were before the vote. Maybe then we wouldn't be in this situation!
Unfortunately over the years that the task force has struggled along, positions hardened and as we've seen from recent exchanges on the mailing list even reasoned and rationale dialogue has become difficult. We should all learn from this experience and make sure we don't get in to this situation again.
I struggle with the value of the various interpretations that have been floated by everyone. Indeed, there will always be differing interpretations of anything that gets decided on and written down - this is the very nature of the written word (there are at least four different interpretations of the word "interpreting" for instance - to explain, to conceive, to present meaning, to translate, etc...) I think what we need to focus on is how these words are applied in the context of the rest of the work. Instead of assessing and analysing the range of interpretations that might exist (and explaining how we might agree or disagree with each) let's instead try to come to an agreement how we collectively have chosen to understand these words and what the practical implications of that understanding are. I suppose what I'm saying is that the current focus on the absolute meaning of Formulation #1 as it relates to Formulation #2 isn't really high value work. Instead, I think we need to concentrate our effort on understanding what the implications of Formulation #1 are as it relates to the work ahead of us. If it turns out that Formulation #1 is too broad or too restrictive for our purposes (or becomes out of scope, or irrrelevant, or judicially troublesome) then let's make sure that TF understands that it needs to communicate these challenges back to us so that we can provide them with some reasonable guidance. I don't honestly believe that progress is as hard to come by as some might think. If the task force and its participants can focus on developing a shared view as it relates to the work items TOR, then progress can definitely be made. Regards, -- -ross rader
participants (3)
-
Avri Doria -
Ross Rader -
tony.ar.holmes＠bt.com