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
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
Mike Rodenbaugh wrote:
Ross, you cannot honestly call this a 'proposed amendment' to our motion. It has nothing to do with our motion.
Shall I assume then that you don't view this as a friendly amendment?
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.
In reviewing this proposal today, I said that the matter before council is to test consensus on the issue of Whois policy. I was very clear about this when I reviewed this motion on the call today. If council conducts this test and cannot find consensus, how does it stand that the status quo should be the default position? This might benefit your constituency, so I find your reaction understandable, but I don't understand your reasoning that a lack of consensus concerning whois policy means that the unsupported, non-consensus based contractual conditions should continue to prevail. And for what its worth, I am not the first to advance this reasoning, although I do believe that it is a proper way to proceed in the event that there is no consensus regarding how Whois should be managed and maintained.
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.
My thinking has changed, yes. My apologies for taking a less than dogmatic approach.
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.
Actually both characterizations are incorrect. My policy object has always been to improve the privacy of individuals as it relates to Whois such that my organization can reasonably defend its business practice to its customers in a meaningful way consistent with Canadian law. There was also a time when I thought that supposed industry leaders might take a similarly enlightened view. Too bad that protecting your trademarks in 14 languages has to take precedent over making the internet a slightly better place, although I understand why a large publicly traded company might get its priorities mixed up once in a while.
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.
PDP stands for Policy Development Process. If you'd like to propose that Council undertake a study to understand the implications of enacting, or redacting a policy, your proposal might make some sense. In the meantime, I've made a proposal that council support the elimination of contractual terms for registrars on the basis that there is no consensus policy to support these terms, nor any basis for consensus to be achieved in this area. It also leaves the door open such that if consensus policy on Whois services is developed in the future, than these consensus policies would be implemented just like any other consensus policy (i.e. Transfers, Data Reminder Policy, etc.) -- Regards, Ross Rader Director, Retail Services Tucows Inc. http://www.domaindirect.com t. 416.538.5492
What else do the Registrars not like in their contracts? Maybe you could propose a PDP to examine them for awhile, obstruct and obfuscate the process so that there is no consensus as to continued viability of those provisions, and so argue that they too should be removed. If you are successful with this on WHOIS, what will be next? Of course, your proposal is also of financial benefit to Registries, and satisfies the NCUC completely. So it is surprising they have never to date advocated it, but will not be surprising if they agree with it now. I cannot imagine the other three Constituencies supporting it. So we will have a deeply divided Council on this issue, obviously. So the answer then ought to be to work and discuss further to try to reach consensus. The WG found consensus on several fundamental points, even as to a general OPoC policy that was not supported by 3 Constituencies. The WG also several factual points of contention that, if resolved, could lead to consensus policy. We should not throw away all the work that has gone into this, and decide on a radical solution that has never previously been proposed or discussed. The existing contractual provisions are certainly not 'unsupported' and obviously were the product of consensus among not only the contracting parties but also the rest of the community. Everyone or at least 'almost everyone' should agree on any change to that status quo, including of course any proposal to eliminate it. Mike Rodenbaugh -----Original Message----- From: Ross Rader [mailto:ross@tucows.com] Sent: Thursday, August 30, 2007 10:11 AM To: Mike Rodenbaugh Cc: Council GNSO Subject: Re: [council] Proposed amendment to BCUC motion Mike Rodenbaugh wrote:
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
Shall I assume then that you don't view this as a friendly amendment? 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.
In reviewing this proposal today, I said that the matter before council is to test consensus on the issue of Whois policy. I was very clear about this when I reviewed this motion on the call today. If council conducts this test and cannot find consensus, how does it stand that the status quo should be the default position? This might benefit your constituency, so I find your reaction understandable, but I don't understand your reasoning that a lack of consensus concerning whois policy means that the unsupported, non-consensus based contractual conditions should continue to prevail. And for what its worth, I am not the first to advance this reasoning, although I do believe that it is a proper way to proceed in the event that there is no consensus regarding how Whois should be managed and maintained.
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.
My thinking has changed, yes. My apologies for taking a less than dogmatic approach.
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.
Actually both characterizations are incorrect. My policy object has always been to improve the privacy of individuals as it relates to Whois such that my organization can reasonably defend its business practice to its customers in a meaningful way consistent with Canadian law. There was also a time when I thought that supposed industry leaders might take a similarly enlightened view. Too bad that protecting your trademarks in 14 languages has to take precedent over making the internet a slightly better place, although I understand why a large publicly traded company might get its priorities mixed up once in a while.
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.
PDP stands for Policy Development Process. If you'd like to propose that Council undertake a study to understand the implications of enacting, or redacting a policy, your proposal might make some sense. In the meantime, I've made a proposal that council support the elimination of contractual terms for registrars on the basis that there is no consensus policy to support these terms, nor any basis for consensus to be achieved in this area. It also leaves the door open such that if consensus policy on Whois services is developed in the future, than these consensus policies would be implemented just like any other consensus policy (i.e. Transfers, Data Reminder Policy, etc.) -- Regards, Ross Rader Director, Retail Services Tucows Inc. http://www.domaindirect.com t. 416.538.5492
Mike Rodenbaugh wrote:
What else do the Registrars not like in their contracts? Maybe you could propose a PDP to examine them for awhile, obstruct and obfuscate the process so that there is no consensus as to continued viability of those provisions, and so argue that they too should be removed. If you are successful with this on WHOIS, what will be next?
Mike - I believe the record is extremely clear on where the obfuscation and obstruction has come from. At each turn, your and your "Big Company" brethren, in the guises of the IPC, ISPC and BC have thwarted every attempt at progress, and even in situations where there has been clear majority support for proposals at the council level, the registries, NCUC and registrars have taken the time to try and bring your views into the fold. This last round of work was specifically designed to enlist your support and instead your community ran the process into the ground with excessively unreasonable and selfish demands resulting in an unimplementable mess. The failure here belongs to you and your constituency, not mine and there are literally hundreds of citations on the record to support this.
So the answer then ought to be to work and discuss further to try to reach consensus. The WG found consensus on several fundamental points, even as to a general OPoC policy that was not supported by 3 Constituencies. The WG also several factual points of contention that, if resolved, could lead to consensus policy. We should not throw away all the work that has gone into this, and decide on a radical solution that has never previously been proposed or discussed.
The WG found one thing, and one thing only - that those parties that require access to protect their commercial interests tend to agree with one another on how they should receive access - although even that seemed to break down at the end of the WG when the banks and other sectoral participants withdrew their support for the report. In other words, the working group did not find consensus on anything, despite the best efforts of many to dress the pig up.
The existing contractual provisions are certainly not 'unsupported' and obviously were the product of consensus among not only the contracting parties but also the rest of the community. Everyone or at least 'almost everyone' should agree on any change to that status quo, including of course any proposal to eliminate it.
The existing contractual provisions aren't supported by policy. Whether these clauses are preserved or eliminated is a matter that will solely be decided by the contracted parties, although I am sure that ICANN will in some way consult with its stakeholders similar to how it has in past contract negotiations. Nonetheless, my proposal is simply that the GNSO recognizes that there is no consensus in this area, and until there is, relieve contract parties from Whois obligations for which there is no broad consensus support or pre-existing consensus policy. After 7 years of study, I think its time we move beyond the notion that there will be consensus on the question of whois. If I'm right with this assessment, then council needs to seriously consider the investment it is making in this area. And, by extension, if there is no basis for consensus in this area, then we need to start thinking about sunsetting those provisions that were initially enacted to support legacy practices while consensus policy was being created. -- Regards, Ross Rader Director, Retail Services Tucows Inc. http://www.domaindirect.com t. 416.538.5492
Mike, To what are you referring when you say, "your proposal is also of financial benefit to Registries"? Chuck Gomes "This message is intended for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain information that is privileged, confidential and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. Any unauthorized use, distribution, or disclosure is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please notify sender immediately and destroy/delete the original transmission."
-----Original Message----- From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Mike Rodenbaugh Sent: Thursday, August 30, 2007 1:34 PM To: ross@tucows.com Cc: Council GNSO Subject: RE: [council] Proposed amendment to BCUC motion
What else do the Registrars not like in their contracts? Maybe you could propose a PDP to examine them for awhile, obstruct and obfuscate the process so that there is no consensus as to continued viability of those provisions, and so argue that they too should be removed. If you are successful with this on WHOIS, what will be next?
Of course, your proposal is also of financial benefit to Registries, and satisfies the NCUC completely. So it is surprising they have never to date advocated it, but will not be surprising if they agree with it now. I cannot imagine the other three Constituencies supporting it. So we will have a deeply divided Council on this issue, obviously.
So the answer then ought to be to work and discuss further to try to reach consensus. The WG found consensus on several fundamental points, even as to a general OPoC policy that was not supported by 3 Constituencies. The WG also several factual points of contention that, if resolved, could lead to consensus policy. We should not throw away all the work that has gone into this, and decide on a radical solution that has never previously been proposed or discussed.
The existing contractual provisions are certainly not 'unsupported' and obviously were the product of consensus among not only the contracting parties but also the rest of the community. Everyone or at least 'almost everyone' should agree on any change to that status quo, including of course any proposal to eliminate it.
Mike Rodenbaugh
-----Original Message----- From: Ross Rader [mailto:ross@tucows.com] Sent: Thursday, August 30, 2007 10:11 AM To: Mike Rodenbaugh Cc: Council GNSO Subject: Re: [council] Proposed amendment to BCUC motion
Mike Rodenbaugh wrote:
Ross, you cannot honestly call this a 'proposed amendment' to our > motion. It has nothing to do with our motion.
Shall I assume then that you don't view this as a friendly amendment?
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.
In reviewing this proposal today, I said that the matter before council is to test consensus on the issue of Whois policy. I was very clear about this when I reviewed this motion on the call today. If council conducts this test and cannot find consensus, how does it stand that the
status quo should be the default position? This might benefit your constituency, so I find your reaction understandable, but I don't understand your reasoning that a lack of consensus concerning whois policy means that the unsupported, non-consensus based contractual conditions should continue to prevail.
And for what its worth, I am not the first to advance this reasoning, although I do believe that it is a proper way to proceed in the event that there is no consensus regarding how Whois should be managed and maintained.
I recall you stating at our GNSO Council meeting that
WG, that you would see lack of consensus as meaning we carry on with
kicked off this the
status quo. Apparently your statements were disingenuous or your thinking has changed dramatically since.
My thinking has changed, yes. My apologies for taking a less than dogmatic approach.
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.
Actually both characterizations are incorrect. My policy object has always been to improve the privacy of individuals as it relates to Whois
such that my organization can reasonably defend its business practice to
its customers in a meaningful way consistent with Canadian law. There was also a time when I thought that supposed industry leaders might take
a similarly enlightened view. Too bad that protecting your trademarks in
14 languages has to take precedent over making the internet a slightly better place, although I understand why a large publicly traded company might get its priorities mixed up once in a while.
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.
PDP stands for Policy Development Process. If you'd like to propose that
Council undertake a study to understand the implications of enacting, or
redacting a policy, your proposal might make some sense. In the meantime, I've made a proposal that council support the elimination of contractual terms for registrars on the basis that there is no consensus
policy to support these terms, nor any basis for consensus to be achieved in this area. It also leaves the door open such that if consensus policy on Whois services is developed in the future, than these consensus policies would be implemented just like any other consensus policy (i.e. Transfers, Data Reminder Policy, etc.)
-- Regards,
Ross Rader Director, Retail Services Tucows Inc.
http://www.domaindirect.com t. 416.538.5492
I understand that in the absence of any contractual provisions re an open and accessible WHOIS database, registries and registrars would completely control that data with no restrictions other than national law. Control of WHOIS data equals financial benefit. Maybe I am misunderstanding something, please enlighten me if so. Ross please should be precise ASAP about the contract provisions he proposes Council to suggest be eliminated. And please advise when and where this outcome was ever discussed in an ICANN public forum. Otherwise I think it is inappropriate for us to consider this motion, since the presented solution -- to a very important and long debated issue -- has not been debated substantially by the wider community, including several Working Groups designed to discuss the issues. To consider such a solution at Council would discredit the premise that ICANN is a bottom-up organization focused on consensus-based policymaking. We should focus on the incremental consensus that has been reached, and next steps to an implementable Consensus Policy. Mike Rodenbaugh -----Original Message----- From: Gomes, Chuck [mailto:cgomes@verisign.com] Sent: Thursday, August 30, 2007 5:20 PM To: Mike Rodenbaugh; ross@tucows.com Cc: Council GNSO Subject: RE: [council] Proposed amendment to BCUC motion Mike, To what are you referring when you say, "your proposal is also of financial benefit to Registries"? Chuck Gomes "This message is intended for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain information that is privileged, confidential and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. Any unauthorized use, distribution, or disclosure is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please notify sender immediately and destroy/delete the original transmission."
-----Original Message----- From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Mike Rodenbaugh Sent: Thursday, August 30, 2007 1:34 PM To: ross@tucows.com Cc: Council GNSO Subject: RE: [council] Proposed amendment to BCUC motion
What else do the Registrars not like in their contracts? Maybe you could propose a PDP to examine them for awhile, obstruct and
obfuscate the process so that there is no consensus as to continued viability of those provisions, and so argue that they too should be removed. If you are successful with this on WHOIS, what will be next?
Of course, your proposal is also of financial benefit to Registries, and satisfies the NCUC completely. So it is surprising they have never to date advocated it, but will not be surprising if they agree with it now. I cannot imagine the other three Constituencies supporting it. So we will have a deeply divided Council on this issue, obviously.
So the answer then ought to be to work and discuss further to try to reach consensus. The WG found consensus on several fundamental points, even as to a general OPoC policy that was not supported by 3 Constituencies. The WG also several factual points of contention that, if resolved, could lead to consensus policy. We should not throw away all the work that has gone into this, and decide on a radical solution that has never previously been proposed or discussed.
The existing contractual provisions are certainly not 'unsupported' and obviously were the product of consensus among not only the contracting parties but also the rest of the community. Everyone or at least 'almost everyone' should agree on any change to that status quo, including of course any proposal to eliminate it.
Mike Rodenbaugh
-----Original Message----- From: Ross Rader [mailto:ross@tucows.com] Sent: Thursday, August 30, 2007 10:11 AM To: Mike Rodenbaugh Cc: Council GNSO Subject: Re: [council] Proposed amendment to BCUC motion
Mike Rodenbaugh wrote:
Ross, you cannot honestly call this a 'proposed amendment' to our > motion. It has nothing to do with our motion.
Shall I assume then that you don't view this as a friendly amendment?
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.
In reviewing this proposal today, I said that the matter before council is to test consensus on the issue of Whois policy. I was very clear about this when I reviewed this motion on the call today. If council conducts this test and cannot find consensus, how does it stand that the
status quo should be the default position? This might benefit your constituency, so I find your reaction understandable, but I don't understand your reasoning that a lack of consensus concerning whois policy means that the unsupported, non-consensus based contractual conditions should continue to prevail.
And for what its worth, I am not the first to advance this reasoning, although I do believe that it is a proper way to proceed in the event that there is no consensus regarding how Whois should be managed and maintained.
I recall you stating at our GNSO Council meeting that
WG, that you would see lack of consensus as meaning we carry on with
kicked off this the
status quo. Apparently your statements were disingenuous or your thinking has changed dramatically since.
My thinking has changed, yes. My apologies for taking a less than dogmatic approach.
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.
Actually both characterizations are incorrect. My policy object has always been to improve the privacy of individuals as it relates to Whois
such that my organization can reasonably defend its business practice to
its customers in a meaningful way consistent with Canadian law. There was also a time when I thought that supposed industry leaders might take
a similarly enlightened view. Too bad that protecting your trademarks in
14 languages has to take precedent over making the internet a slightly
better place, although I understand why a large publicly traded company might get its priorities mixed up once in a while.
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.
PDP stands for Policy Development Process. If you'd like to propose that
Council undertake a study to understand the implications of enacting, or
redacting a policy, your proposal might make some sense. In the meantime, I've made a proposal that council support the elimination of
contractual terms for registrars on the basis that there is no consensus
policy to support these terms, nor any basis for consensus to be achieved in this area. It also leaves the door open such that if consensus policy on Whois services is developed in the future, than these consensus policies would be implemented just like any other consensus policy (i.e. Transfers, Data Reminder Policy, etc.)
-- Regards,
Ross Rader Director, Retail Services Tucows Inc.
http://www.domaindirect.com t. 416.538.5492
From discussions I've been having with my fellows NCUCers, it appears that given those circumstances, the present situation means that the default value becomes "no whois requirement at all" until and unless we can agree on a consensus policy regarding Whois. This was how ICANN was supposed to work - no
Mike and all, In fact, the Whois policy has never been developed based on a bottom-up process and consensus involving the community (whether wider or narrower.) So it lacks of that legitimacy, in the first place, to be able to invoke that argument now to maintain it. policy without consensus. For information, I'm referring to the section 3.3.1 of the RAA version May 2001, and any variant thereof: 3.3.1 At its expense, Registrar shall provide an interactive web page and a port 43 Whois service providing free public query-based access to up-to-date (i.e., updated at least daily) data concerning all active Registered Names sponsored by Registrar for each TLD in which it is accredited. The data accessible shall consist of elements that are designated from time to time according to an ICANN adopted specification or policy. Until ICANN otherwise specifies by means of an ICANN adopted specification or policy, this data shall consist of the following elements as contained in Registrar's database: etc. Mawaki --- Mike Rodenbaugh <mxr@yahoo-inc.com> wrote:
I understand that in the absence of any contractual provisions re an open and accessible WHOIS database, registries and registrars would completely control that data with no restrictions other than national law. Control of WHOIS data equals financial benefit.
Maybe I am misunderstanding something, please enlighten me if so.
Ross please should be precise ASAP about the contract provisions he proposes Council to suggest be eliminated. And please advise when and where this outcome was ever discussed in an ICANN public forum.
Otherwise I think it is inappropriate for us to consider this motion, since the presented solution -- to a very important and long debated issue -- has not been debated substantially by the wider community, including several Working Groups designed to discuss the issues. To consider such a solution at Council would discredit the premise that ICANN is a bottom-up organization focused on consensus-based policymaking.
We should focus on the incremental consensus that has been reached, and next steps to an implementable Consensus Policy.
Mike Rodenbaugh
-----Original Message----- From: Gomes, Chuck [mailto:cgomes@verisign.com] Sent: Thursday, August 30, 2007 5:20 PM To: Mike Rodenbaugh; ross@tucows.com Cc: Council GNSO Subject: RE: [council] Proposed amendment to BCUC motion
Mike,
To what are you referring when you say, "your proposal is also of financial benefit to Registries"?
Chuck Gomes
"This message is intended for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain information that is privileged, confidential and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. Any unauthorized use, distribution, or disclosure is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please notify sender immediately and destroy/delete the original transmission."
-----Original Message----- From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Mike Rodenbaugh Sent: Thursday, August 30, 2007 1:34 PM To: ross@tucows.com Cc: Council GNSO Subject: RE: [council] Proposed amendment to BCUC motion
What else do the Registrars not like in their contracts? Maybe you could propose a PDP to examine them for awhile, obstruct and
obfuscate the process so that there is no consensus as to continued viability of those provisions, and so argue that they too should be removed. If you are successful with this on WHOIS, what will be next?
Of course, your proposal is also of financial benefit to Registries, and satisfies the NCUC completely. So it is surprising they have never to date advocated it, but will not be surprising if they agree with it now. I cannot imagine the other three Constituencies supporting it. So we will have a deeply divided Council on this issue, obviously.
So the answer then ought to be to work and discuss further to try to reach consensus. The WG found consensus on several fundamental points, even as to a general OPoC policy that was not supported by 3 Constituencies. The WG also several factual points of contention that, if resolved, could lead to consensus policy. We should not throw away all the work that has gone into this, and decide on a radical solution that has never previously been proposed or discussed.
The existing contractual provisions are certainly not 'unsupported' and obviously were the product of consensus among not only the contracting parties but also the rest of the community. Everyone or at least 'almost everyone' should agree on any change to that status quo, including of course any proposal to eliminate it.
Mike Rodenbaugh
-----Original Message----- From: Ross Rader [mailto:ross@tucows.com] Sent: Thursday, August 30, 2007 10:11 AM To: Mike Rodenbaugh Cc: Council GNSO Subject: Re: [council] Proposed amendment to BCUC motion
Mike Rodenbaugh wrote:
Ross, you cannot honestly call this a 'proposed amendment' to our > motion. It has nothing to do with our motion.
Shall I assume then that you don't view this as a friendly amendment?
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.
In reviewing this proposal today, I said that the matter before council is to test consensus on the issue of Whois policy. I was very clear about this when I reviewed this motion on the call today. If council conducts this test and cannot find consensus, how does it stand that the
status quo should be the default position? This might benefit your constituency, so I find your reaction understandable, but I don't understand your reasoning that a lack of consensus concerning whois policy means that the unsupported, non-consensus based contractual conditions should continue to prevail.
And for what its worth, I am not the first to advance this reasoning, although I do believe that it is a proper way to proceed in the event that there is no consensus regarding how Whois should be managed and maintained.
I recall you stating at our GNSO Council meeting that
WG, that you would see lack of consensus as meaning we carry on with
kicked off this the
status quo. Apparently your statements were disingenuous or your thinking has changed dramatically since.
My thinking has changed, yes. My apologies for taking a less than dogmatic approach.
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.
Actually both characterizations are incorrect. My policy object has always been to improve the privacy of individuals as it relates to Whois
such that my organization can reasonably defend its business practice to
its customers in a meaningful way consistent with Canadian law. There was also a time when I thought that supposed industry leaders might take
a similarly enlightened view. Too bad that protecting your trademarks in
14 languages has to take precedent over making the internet a slightly
better place, although I understand why a large publicly traded company might get its priorities mixed up once in a while.
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.
PDP stands for Policy Development Process. If you'd like to propose that
Council undertake a study to understand the implications of enacting, or
redacting a policy, your proposal might make some sense. In the meantime, I've made a proposal that council support the elimination of
contractual terms for registrars on the basis that there is no consensus
policy to support these terms, nor any basis for consensus to be achieved in this area. It also leaves the door open such that if consensus policy on Whois services is developed in the future, than these consensus policies would be implemented just like any other consensus policy (i.e. Transfers, Data Reminder Policy, etc.)
-- Regards,
Ross Rader Director, Retail Services Tucows Inc.
http://www.domaindirect.com t. 416.538.5492
Mike Rodenbaugh wrote:
Ross please should be precise ASAP about the contract provisions he proposes Council to suggest be eliminated.
Council does not typically deal with the level of detail that you propose Mike. In this case, I would foresee that if this motion is successful that staff would prepare an information brief consisting of this and other data that would facilitate the implementation of the motion.
And please advise when and where this outcome was ever discussed in an ICANN public forum.
I am not exactly certain of the genesis of the proposal, but it is the subject of a paper authored by Avri and similar to an idea circulated through the GA by Danny Younger. I am certain you could find more information on the notion by reviewing the transcripts of the relevant meetings over the last year or so.
Otherwise I think it is inappropriate for us to consider this motion, since the presented solution -- to a very important and long debated issue -- has not been debated substantially by the wider community, including several Working Groups designed to discuss the issues. To consider such a solution at Council would discredit the premise that ICANN is a bottom-up organization focused on consensus-based policymaking.
Again, I think you are confused about my proposal. Nothing I propose threatens ICANN's legitimacy as a consensus-based, bottom-up policy making organization. In fact, I believe my proposal furthers its legitimacy in this area. Specifically, my proposal deals with a series of requirements that are in fact *not* ICANN policy, yet we proceed with this status quo as if it has the support of the community simply because "this is the way its always been". My proposals recognizes this fact and allows us the opportunity to clear the way for real consensus based policy by eliminating the arbitrary determinations set forth in those contracts. This will allow the community the opportunity to come to the table and discuss the issue with the benefit of a clean slate, if it desires. And if there is consensus that there should be a policy-based means to provide and manage the Whois services, then we can initiate a PDP to find that common-ground and implement binding policy.
We should focus on the incremental consensus that has been reached, and next steps to an implementable Consensus Policy.
What incremental consensus is that? None of the IP lobby that I'm aware of supports the OPOC proposal and continues to view it as problematic even in light of the tangled mess of proposed changes that the captured working group has tabled. Furthermore, even those that did initially support the recommendations of the working group initially, for instance the banking sector, have pulled back from their support due to their failure to broaden the scope of the OPOC proposal sufficiently to ensure their version of unfettered access to personal data. There is no consensus on these proposals. -- Regards, Ross Rader Director, Retail Services Tucows Inc. http://www.domaindirect.com t. 416.538.5492
Hi Ross, As I mentioned today in the meeting when I asked you to talk about your motion, I do not see how this could be amendment to Mike's motion, friendly or otherwise, I guess I wasn't very clear about that then. It does, however, seem like a standalone motion that could be made if you so wished and had a second. If you insist that it is properly an amendment, I will have to get advice on whether it does indeed count as an amendment. And if it is a well formed amendment, by some acceptable definition, then I believe we would have to vote on it before voting on Mike's motion (a Robert's Rules of Order sort of thing even though we are generally not that strict about things). One problem I have seeing it as an amendment is that amendments usually have a 'substitute x for y' type of format. And a 'substitute all of it for this,' is more of a counter motion in my experience. Further, As you know, I was a co-author of a paper that suggested something similar. We even tried to get it included as an original Task force option, failed because of timing but got it included as Appendix B. I point this out to say I am _not_ arguing against this as an amendment to Mike's proposal because I disagree with it in principle. And to let Mike know where the idea has come up before. While I believe that any motion that a councilor makes that is duly seconded needs to be voted on, I would also ask if this is the right time for this vote. I would ask that this vote, if indeed there is to be a vote on this, be held until the end of the process I am proposing. Once we have the constituencies review the work and have gotten their opinions, then it might be the right time for the council to consider this motion along with the the TF report and WG report. At that point, the councilors could make an informed vote based on their constituencies viewpoints. If, however, you wish to have this motion considered third after we consider the proposal I am tabling and Mikes proposal for initiating the studies, and you have a second, I will call the vote. Alternatively, if ICANN counsel or other parliamentary procedure expert confirms that this is a valid and well formed amendment then I will follow an amendment voting procedure. So, Ross, I would like to ask you to consider holding this until after we have gone through the process to get GNSO review for the WG efforts. thanks a. On 30 aug 2007, at 17.19, Ross Rader wrote:
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
I am happy to proceed as if this were a substitute motion, in which case the proper parliamentary procedure would be to allow the council to vote on both propositions at a time considered appropriate by the chair. Neither of the motions are mutually exclusive and could conceivably be passed by council without real contention between the motions (i.e. its not as if one says "stop" and the other says "go" - more like one says "study more" and the other says "do something else completely", but we could "study more" and "do something else completely" in addition.). I would like this motion to be considered at the same time as Mike's motion as I believe we are substantively looking to deal with the same agenda item - it would also make sense, given the approach you've outlined below, that we both wait until your process has concluded. Avri Doria wrote:
Hi Ross,
As I mentioned today in the meeting when I asked you to talk about your motion, I do not see how this could be amendment to Mike's motion, friendly or otherwise, I guess I wasn't very clear about that then. It does, however, seem like a standalone motion that could be made if you so wished and had a second. If you insist that it is properly an amendment, I will have to get advice on whether it does indeed count as an amendment. And if it is a well formed amendment, by some acceptable definition, then I believe we would have to vote on it before voting on Mike's motion (a Robert's Rules of Order sort of thing even though we are generally not that strict about things). One problem I have seeing it as an amendment is that amendments usually have a 'substitute x for y' type of format. And a 'substitute all of it for this,' is more of a counter motion in my experience.
Further, As you know, I was a co-author of a paper that suggested something similar. We even tried to get it included as an original Task force option, failed because of timing but got it included as Appendix B. I point this out to say I am _not_ arguing against this as an amendment to Mike's proposal because I disagree with it in principle. And to let Mike know where the idea has come up before.
While I believe that any motion that a councilor makes that is duly seconded needs to be voted on, I would also ask if this is the right time for this vote. I would ask that this vote, if indeed there is to be a vote on this, be held until the end of the process I am proposing. Once we have the constituencies review the work and have gotten their opinions, then it might be the right time for the council to consider this motion along with the the TF report and WG report. At that point, the councilors could make an informed vote based on their constituencies viewpoints.
If, however, you wish to have this motion considered third after we consider the proposal I am tabling and Mikes proposal for initiating the studies, and you have a second, I will call the vote. Alternatively, if ICANN counsel or other parliamentary procedure expert confirms that this is a valid and well formed amendment then I will follow an amendment voting procedure.
So, Ross, I would like to ask you to consider holding this until after we have gone through the process to get GNSO review for the WG efforts.
thanks
a.
On 30 aug 2007, at 17.19, Ross Rader wrote:
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
-- Regards, Ross Rader Director, Retail Services Tucows Inc. http://www.domaindirect.com t. 416.538.5492
The GAC Communique from Lisbon, March 28, 2007, suggested: The ICANN Community, working with other stakeholders, should gather information on gTLD domain name registrations and registrants and how WHOIS data is used and misused. This information should be publicized and used to inform future debate on this issue. It was not part of the latest WG's Charter to undertake such a study, I think because the Communique came out after we had resolved the Charter (later the same day). But that WG nevertheless came to the conclusion that such a study should be undertaken for the same reason. What is the harm in undertaking such a study now, before voting to move forward with radical policy changes (OPoC, or Ross' proposal) that have only been outlined, and are far from implementable proposals? What would be the harm of waiting for the results of such a study, before deciding on a path to completion of work on this issue? I still have no idea what we would be voting on in November, per Avri's proposal, since there is no implementable proposal on the table nor any path to come up with one. 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 12:35 PM To: Avri Doria Cc: Council GNSO Subject: Re: [council] Proposed amendment to BCUC motion I am happy to proceed as if this were a substitute motion, in which case the proper parliamentary procedure would be to allow the council to vote on both propositions at a time considered appropriate by the chair. Neither of the motions are mutually exclusive and could conceivably be passed by council without real contention between the motions (i.e. its not as if one says "stop" and the other says "go" - more like one says "study more" and the other says "do something else completely", but we could "study more" and "do something else completely" in addition.). I would like this motion to be considered at the same time as Mike's motion as I believe we are substantively looking to deal with the same agenda item - it would also make sense, given the approach you've outlined below, that we both wait until your process has concluded. Avri Doria wrote:
Hi Ross,
As I mentioned today in the meeting when I asked you to talk about your motion, I do not see how this could be amendment to Mike's motion, friendly or otherwise, I guess I wasn't very clear about that then. It does, however, seem like a standalone motion that could be made if you
so wished and had a second. If you insist that it is properly an amendment, I will have to get advice on whether it does indeed count as an amendment. And if it is a well formed amendment, by some acceptable definition, then I believe we would have to vote on it before voting on Mike's motion (a Robert's Rules of Order sort of thing even though we are generally not that strict about things). One problem I have seeing it as an amendment is that amendments usually have a 'substitute x for
y' type of format. And a 'substitute all of it for this,' is more of a counter motion in my experience.
Further, As you know, I was a co-author of a paper that suggested something similar. We even tried to get it included as an original Task force option, failed because of timing but got it included as Appendix
B. I point this out to say I am _not_ arguing against this as an amendment to Mike's proposal because I disagree with it in principle.
And to let Mike know where the idea has come up before.
While I believe that any motion that a councilor makes that is duly seconded needs to be voted on, I would also ask if this is the right time for this vote. I would ask that this vote, if indeed there is to
be a vote on this, be held until the end of the process I am proposing. Once we have the constituencies review the work and have gotten their opinions, then it might be the right time for the council to consider this motion along with the the TF report and WG report. At that point, the councilors could make an informed vote based on their constituencies viewpoints.
If, however, you wish to have this motion considered third after we consider the proposal I am tabling and Mikes proposal for initiating the studies, and you have a second, I will call the vote. Alternatively, if ICANN counsel or other parliamentary procedure expert confirms that this is a valid and well formed amendment then I will follow an amendment voting procedure.
So, Ross, I would like to ask you to consider holding this until after
we have gone through the process to get GNSO review for the WG efforts.
thanks
a.
On 30 aug 2007, at 17.19, Ross Rader wrote:
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
-- Regards, Ross Rader Director, Retail Services Tucows Inc. http://www.domaindirect.com t. 416.538.5492
Mike Rodenbaugh wrote:
What is the harm in undertaking such a study now, before voting to move forward with radical policy changes (OPoC, or Ross' proposal) that have only been outlined, and are far from implementable proposals?
What would be the harm of waiting for the results of such a study, before deciding on a path to completion of work on this issue?
The requirements of the PDP are very clear. I think its time we get back to relying on the processes defined in the process. After constituencies have weighed in on a policy proposal, such as the one that staff is pulling together from the mess that was put forward by the WG and the TF report, the Council is required to determine whether or not the proposal merits a policy recommendation to the board. If you believe that the policy proposal does not merit a recommendation to the board, then I would presume that you would vote against it and then recommend that the Council study the issue further in an attempt to better understand the issue. At the same time, my constituency will do the same, and likely recommend that Council proceed along the lines I've laid out in my motion. I believe this is what Avri has outlined for us. What is the harm in following our bylaws and the work plan laid out by our chair? -- Regards, Ross Rader Director, Retail Services Tucows Inc. http://www.domaindirect.com t. 416.538.5492
Hi, My issue on your original motion is that by including:
The GNSO Council does not consider the WG report as an adequate basis for any implementation of OPOC.
it is asking the councilors to make a determination on this work without having gone back to the constituencies. One of the problems people have brought up with the WG is that given it was a group of individuals, it is impossible to know where the GSNO constituencies stand on the recommendations made by the WG. That is the main reason I believe we should be asking the constituencies to update their impact statements in the light of this additional content. I think it would have been a different motion if it had just asked the staff to begin looking into the work required to study the queestions so that they could come back to the council with a recommendation on how to proceed. It is also different then a proposal to have the studies begin and run in parrallel with other whois activities. Personally I think that the information from these studies may be useful to the Board in making its decsion, but I would be surprised if they changed the policy positions in the council. And I certainly believe the studies would be helpful in terms of implementation. As far as voting, that is one of the reasons I have requested that the motions be included in the Draft final report that is reviewed by the constituencies and the community. It is my current expectation that there are at least 3 possible motions: - One that you might write up saying something like the information that the WG provided is insufficient for the implementation of an OPOC and that we recommend that the work continue within the council until the information from the studies can be factored in. Perhaps, should you defer your motion, you will use the text already submitted. - One I will write up that basically states: The council supports the OPOC recommendation as contained in the TF report and instructs the staff to consult the work of the WG and the follow-on discussion, including comments supplied by the constituencies during the review and by the community, in creating its implementation. It will further request that the staff consult with the council once it has developed a draft implementation plan should both the council and the board support the OPOC recommendation. (still needs wordsmithing) - One that I expect Ross will write up saying something like: there is no consensus and that in the absence of consensus the staff should remove the contractual condition requiring whois service. Perhaps he will use the text he already submitted. - and any other option someone wants to write up as a motion. This way the constituencies can not only include their comments on the recommendations but can give explicit directions, should they wish to do so, on how their representatives are to vote. Though as I told Ross, since you made the motion and I believe have had it seconded by Kristina, I will put it to a vote at our next if that is what you want to do. thanks a. On 30 aug 2007, at 23.25, Mike Rodenbaugh wrote:
The GAC Communique from Lisbon, March 28, 2007, suggested:
The ICANN Community, working with other stakeholders, should gather information on gTLD domain name registrations and registrants and how WHOIS data is used and misused. This information should be publicized and used to inform future debate on this issue.
It was not part of the latest WG's Charter to undertake such a study, I think because the Communique came out after we had resolved the Charter (later the same day). But that WG nevertheless came to the conclusion that such a study should be undertaken for the same reason.
What is the harm in undertaking such a study now, before voting to move forward with radical policy changes (OPoC, or Ross' proposal) that have only been outlined, and are far from implementable proposals?
What would be the harm of waiting for the results of such a study, before deciding on a path to completion of work on this issue?
I still have no idea what we would be voting on in November, per Avri's proposal, since there is no implementable proposal on the table nor any path to come up with one.
Mike Rodenbaugh
Hi, I would like to second Ross's proposed amendment as it stands at this point in time (the initial wording), and hope the council will consider a vote on this issue as soon as possible. Thanks, Mawaki --- Ross Rader <ross@tucows.com> wrote:
I am happy to proceed as if this were a substitute motion, in which case the proper parliamentary procedure would be to allow the council to vote on both propositions at a time considered appropriate by the chair. Neither of the motions are mutually exclusive and could conceivably be passed by council without real contention between the motions (i.e. its not as if one says "stop" and the other says "go" - more like one says "study more" and the other says "do something else completely", but we could "study more" and "do something else completely" in addition.).
I would like this motion to be considered at the same time as Mike's motion as I believe we are substantively looking to deal with the same agenda item - it would also make sense, given the approach you've outlined below, that we both wait until your process has concluded.
Hi Ross,
As I mentioned today in the meeting when I asked you to talk about your motion, I do not see how this could be amendment to Mike's motion, friendly or otherwise, I guess I wasn't very clear about
does, however, seem like a standalone motion that could be made if you so wished and had a second. If you insist that it is
amendment, I will have to get advice on whether it does indeed count as an amendment. And if it is a well formed amendment, by some acceptable definition, then I believe we would have to vote on it before voting on Mike's motion (a Robert's Rules of Order sort of thing even
are generally not that strict about things). One problem I have seeing it as an amendment is that amendments usually have a 'substitute x for y' type of format. And a 'substitute all of it for this,' is more of a counter motion in my experience.
Further, As you know, I was a co-author of a paper that suggested something similar. We even tried to get it included as an original Task force option, failed because of timing but got it included as Appendix B. I point this out to say I am _not_ arguing against this as an amendment to Mike's proposal because I disagree with it in
And to let Mike know where the idea has come up before.
While I believe that any motion that a councilor makes that is duly seconded needs to be voted on, I would also ask if this is
time for this vote. I would ask that this vote, if indeed
be a vote on this, be held until the end of the process I am
Once we have the constituencies review the work and have gotten their opinions, then it might be the right time for the council to consider this motion along with the the TF report and WG report. At
the councilors could make an informed vote based on their constituencies viewpoints.
If, however, you wish to have this motion considered third after we consider the proposal I am tabling and Mikes proposal for initiating the studies, and you have a second, I will call the vote. Alternatively, if ICANN counsel or other parliamentary procedure expert confirms that this is a valid and well formed amendment then I will follow an amendment voting procedure.
So, Ross, I would like to ask you to consider holding this until after we have gone through the process to get GNSO review for the WG efforts.
thanks
a.
On 30 aug 2007, at 17.19, Ross Rader wrote:
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
2. The GNSO Council does not consider the WG report as sufficiently demonstrating consensus or agreement on substantive policy
Avri Doria wrote: that then. It properly an though we principle. the right there is to proposing. that point, preparing this report. 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
-- Regards,
Ross Rader Director, Retail Services Tucows Inc.
http://www.domaindirect.com t. 416.538.5492
Mawaki Chango wrote:
Hi,
I would like to second Ross's proposed amendment as it stands at this point in time (the initial wording), and hope the council will consider a vote on this issue as soon as possible.
Thank you Mawaki. -- Regards, Ross Rader Director, Retail Services Tucows Inc. http://www.domaindirect.com t. 416.538.5492
participants (5)
-
Avri Doria
-
Gomes, Chuck
-
Mawaki Chango
-
Mike Rodenbaugh
-
Ross Rader