Proposed motion on WHOIS
Proposed Motion In response to the extensive community and Government input on the definition of the purpose of WHOIS, the GNSO Council agrees to undertake the following steps: One: Each Council member that voted in favour of the definition will provide a brief explanation of the reason for supporting the resolution and their understanding of its meaning. Two: the ICANN staff will provide a summary of the other interpretations of the definition that have been expressed by the community and Governments. Three: the Council will undertake a dialogue with the GAC and SSAC on developing a broadly understandable definition of the purposes for which the current data required in the RRA is collected. Four: The GNSO Council requests that the WHOIS task force continue with their work as specified in the terms of reference taking into account the recent input that has been provided. Five: The GNSO Council will take the final report from the WHOIS task force that addresses all terms of reference, and the definition of purpose of collecting data derived from the dialogue with the GAC and SSAC, and consider improving the wording of the WHOIS service definition so that it is broadly understandable. The GNSO Council notes that the current definition is related to the service that provides public access to some or all of the data collected, and is not a definition of the purpose of the data itself.
I'd note that there is a 15 minute delay between the sending of this motion and the receipt of it. Coupled with the telephonic difficulties, I have been completely unable to follow this discussion. As previously requested, I'd like to reiterate my request to take no action on this question until we've all had time to consider the inputs and potential implications. Bruce Tonkin wrote:
Proposed Motion
In response to the extensive community and Government input on the definition of the purpose of WHOIS, the GNSO Council agrees to undertake the following steps:
One: Each Council member that voted in favour of the definition will provide a brief explanation of the reason for supporting the resolution and their understanding of its meaning.
Two: the ICANN staff will provide a summary of the other interpretations of the definition that have been expressed by the community and Governments.
Three: the Council will undertake a dialogue with the GAC and SSAC on developing a broadly understandable definition of the purposes for which the current data required in the RRA is collected.
Four: The GNSO Council requests that the WHOIS task force continue with their work as specified in the terms of reference taking into account the recent input that has been provided.
Five: The GNSO Council will take the final report from the WHOIS task force that addresses all terms of reference, and the definition of purpose of collecting data derived from the dialogue with the GAC and SSAC, and consider improving the wording of the WHOIS service definition so that it is broadly understandable.
The GNSO Council notes that the current definition is related to the service that provides public access to some or all of the data collected, and is not a definition of the purpose of the data itself.
Regards, -- -ross rader general manager, domain direct/netidentity/nameplanet Have you checked out the NetIdentity/Nameplanet Weblog? http://netidentity.weblog.info
Dear Council, Dear Bruce, I would like to add my voice to the suggestion by Ross. Though I was in Marrakesh for the time of Saturday to Monday and am aware of the many statements which came and come in, I think your proposal is introducing new procedures ("Each Council member that voted in favour of the definition will provide a brief explanation of the reason for supporting the resolution and their understanding of its meaning") which are totally absent from any normal democratic election procedure I know. I consider this as an attempt to abolish or at least to discredit an validly achieved decision by the council. I am not against normal Council procedures to clarify, if anything has to be clarified - e.g. the wrong interpretations that the decision taken (I am not speaking any longer about formula 1 or 2, but only about the decision we took) would exclude the possibility of law enforcement agencies to act, according to existing valid laws. If the laws are considered by somebody to be not sufficient, it is a question for the legislative bodies of involved countries to act - it is not a question for the Council, or for GAC, to do something similar, as if we would have the authority to handle legislation. Norbert = Ross Rader wrote:
I'd note that there is a 15 minute delay between the sending of this motion and the receipt of it. Coupled with the telephonic difficulties, I have been completely unable to follow this discussion.
As previously requested, I'd like to reiterate my request to take no action on this question until we've all had time to consider the inputs and potential implications.
Bruce Tonkin wrote:
Proposed Motion
In response to the extensive community and Government input on the definition of the purpose of WHOIS, the GNSO Council agrees to undertake the following steps:
One: Each Council member that voted in favour of the definition will provide a brief explanation of the reason for supporting the resolution and their understanding of its meaning.
Two: the ICANN staff will provide a summary of the other interpretations of the definition that have been expressed by the community and Governments.
Three: the Council will undertake a dialogue with the GAC and SSAC on developing a broadly understandable definition of the purposes for which the current data required in the RRA is collected.
Four: The GNSO Council requests that the WHOIS task force continue with their work as specified in the terms of reference taking into account the recent input that has been provided.
Five: The GNSO Council will take the final report from the WHOIS task force that addresses all terms of reference, and the definition of purpose of collecting data derived from the dialogue with the GAC and SSAC, and consider improving the wording of the WHOIS service definition so that it is broadly understandable.
The GNSO Council notes that the current definition is related to the service that provides public access to some or all of the data collected, and is not a definition of the purpose of the data itself.
Regards,
I must add my voice to this suggestion by Ross and Norbert. As someone who woke up at 3am today to be in the GNSO call, but was not able to hear the discussion to participate in it, I feel at a real disadvantage in understanding what is happening in Marrakesh. It seems like those who were unhappy with the outcome of the whois vote are now trying to undo the vote. This seems quite irregular and inappropriate. Robin Norbert Klein wrote:
Dear Council, Dear Bruce,
I would like to add my voice to the suggestion by Ross. Though I was in Marrakesh for the time of Saturday to Monday and am aware of the many statements which came and come in, I think your proposal is introducing new procedures ("Each Council member that voted in favour of the definition will provide a brief explanation of the reason for supporting the resolution and their understanding of its meaning") which are totally absent from any normal democratic election procedure I know. I consider this as an attempt to abolish or at least to discredit an validly achieved decision by the council.
I am not against normal Council procedures to clarify, if anything has to be clarified - e.g. the wrong interpretations that the decision taken (I am not speaking any longer about formula 1 or 2, but only about the decision we took) would exclude the possibility of law enforcement agencies to act, according to existing valid laws.
If the laws are considered by somebody to be not sufficient, it is a question for the legislative bodies of involved countries to act - it is not a question for the Council, or for GAC, to do something similar, as if we would have the authority to handle legislation.
Norbert
=
Ross Rader wrote:
I'd note that there is a 15 minute delay between the sending of this motion and the receipt of it. Coupled with the telephonic difficulties, I have been completely unable to follow this discussion.
As previously requested, I'd like to reiterate my request to take no action on this question until we've all had time to consider the inputs and potential implications.
Bruce Tonkin wrote:
Proposed Motion
In response to the extensive community and Government input on the definition of the purpose of WHOIS, the GNSO Council agrees to undertake the following steps:
One: Each Council member that voted in favour of the definition will provide a brief explanation of the reason for supporting the resolution and their understanding of its meaning.
Two: the ICANN staff will provide a summary of the other interpretations of the definition that have been expressed by the community and Governments.
Three: the Council will undertake a dialogue with the GAC and SSAC on developing a broadly understandable definition of the purposes for which the current data required in the RRA is collected.
Four: The GNSO Council requests that the WHOIS task force continue with their work as specified in the terms of reference taking into account the recent input that has been provided.
Five: The GNSO Council will take the final report from the WHOIS task force that addresses all terms of reference, and the definition of purpose of collecting data derived from the dialogue with the GAC and SSAC, and consider improving the wording of the WHOIS service definition so that it is broadly understandable.
The GNSO Council notes that the current definition is related to the service that provides public access to some or all of the data collected, and is not a definition of the purpose of the data itself.
Regards,
Robin Gross wrote:
I must add my voice to this suggestion by Ross and Norbert.
As someone who woke up at 3am today to be in the GNSO call, but was not able to hear the discussion to participate in it, I feel at a real disadvantage in understanding what is happening in Marrakesh. It seems like those who were unhappy with the outcome of the whois vote are now trying to undo the vote. This seems quite irregular and inappropriate.
I don't have any real concerns about the regularity of what's being suggested (not to diminish your concerns) I'm just seeking to understand what's being suggested. I'm still poring over the volume of submissions and transcripts in order to get a handle on the context in which this motion was made. It continues to be difficult to participate in remote council discussions. It would be helpful if the AV staff worked out a way that we could create a Skype bridge directly into the PA system so that we get a high-fidelity experience. I understand that there were extraordinary difficulties with the Morocco AV, but under ordinary circumstances bridging the teleconference facility with a Skype connection into the PA should not be a very difficult undertaking. Regards, -- -ross rader general manager, domain direct/netidentity/nameplanet Have you checked out the NetIdentity/Nameplanet Weblog? http://netidentity.weblog.info
Hello Bruce, Council, --- Bruce Tonkin <Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au> wrote:
Proposed Motion
In response to the extensive community and Government input on the definition of the purpose of WHOIS, the GNSO Council agrees to undertake the following steps:
One: Each Council member that voted in favour of the definition will provide a brief explanation of the reason for supporting the resolution and their understanding of its meaning.
This might seem something simple, innocuous to do, however I feel there is something dangerous here. The assumption here, whether we like it or not, is that we are implying there is something wrong that needs to be fixed, on the side of those who voted for the current formulation of the purpose of WHOIS (the former formulation 1). What if some voted against because they misunterstood it? Why do we seem to assume that the mistake, if any, is necessarily on the other side (that of the voted definition)? I guess Bruce, you didn't mean to imply that, but the fact is that obviously is the assumption of those who are counter attacking the vote of the Council, and by doing everything necessary (and even more) to please them, we end up by adhering to that assumption without realizing it. Let's be careful and not set the following as a precedent: the Council vote means nothing, because the Council is not those who voted for this or that definition - it is all of us.
Two: the ICANN staff will provide a summary of the other interpretations of the definition that have been expressed by the community and Governments.
Three: the Council will undertake a dialogue with the GAC and SSAC on developing a broadly understandable definition of the purposes for which the current data required in the RRA is collected.
The GAC as a whole has no such a thing as a position so far, and we need to clarify what exactly the GAC representatives individually represents. The GAC individual members may come from a department of their government that has nothing whatsoever to do with data storage/protection/retention/use, etc. in their country, much less with WHOIS. We've recently seen GAC members make declarations contradictory to their national laws on the matter. So collecting their views, especially if we collect their individual views, we need to make sure that those are consistent/complemented with the views of their national law enforcement agencies, as well as their national data protection authorities. That is the only way we can say such position is such country government's position, which is what is legitimate to pursue, not just taking the opinion of individuals just because they happen to have been appointed by their government on the GAC (is it necessary to remind us that the GAC has not a specific competence dealing substantially with a specific set of issues, such as WHOIS's, but the whole array of issues that fall under ICANN mission and functions).
Four: The GNSO Council requests that the WHOIS task force continue with their work as specified in the terms of reference taking into account the recent input that has been provided.
Five: The GNSO Council will take the final report from the WHOIS task force that addresses all terms of reference, and the definition of purpose of collecting data derived from the dialogue with the GAC and SSAC, and consider improving the wording of the WHOIS service definition so that it is broadly understandable.
The GNSO Council notes that the current definition is related to the service that provides public access to some or all of the data collected, and is not a definition of the purpose of the data itself.
Here we need to have a clear debate on the ground for distinguishing the purpose of WHOIS data and the purpose of WHOIS services. My understanding so far is that, with regard to privacy concerns, the use of the data shall match the purpose of collecting them. The legitimate and legal access and use of that data are catered for by each of the jurisdictions concerned. Law has always had preeminence on any regulation and policy arrangements in all countries. Natural persons as well as legal entities such as registrars, are subject to the law in force on their territory. Does ICANN need - and is it the mission of ICANN - to further take care of this? Mawaki
participants (5)
-
Bruce Tonkin -
Mawaki Chango -
Norbert Klein -
Robin Gross -
Ross Rader