RE: [council] Proposed WHOIS motion for 20 July 2006
Hello All,
(3) The Council will undertake a dialogue with governments, via the GAC, to work towards developing a broadly understandable definition of the minimum purposes for which the current data required in the Registrar Accreditation Agreement (see clause 3.4 of http://www.icann.org/registrars/ra-agreement-17may01.htm ), as listed below, is collected and retained. The dialogue should seek to balance privacy and law enforcement concerns with ICANN's mission and core values, and must take into account the views of law enforcement agencies, data protection authorities, the policies and rules of access to ccTLD data, and relevant national laws.
An alternative wording for the last sentence is: The purpose of the dialogue should be to seek, to the extent reasonably possible, a balance of privacy and law enforcement concerns with ICANN's mission and core values, and may also consider the views of data protection authorities, the policies and rules of access to ccTLD data, and relevant national laws. Regards, Bruce Tonkin
Dear Bruce, I think this needs better wording overall and I'd prefer that we take some consultation from the Ass't General Counsel on possible edits to the draft resolution, along with of course suggested Councilor input. Can we enlist Dan's assistance and attention to this, please? Just to verify that we are seeking to be consistent with ICANN's mission and core values. Consumer protection agencies should be added to any wording. These are typically civil agencies, and may not always be viewed as "law enforcement" by terminology. I inserted IN CAPS below some possible additions/edits. UNDERSTANDIGN WHAT CCTLDS DO IS USEFUL. Several have well established practices and policies, but we need to ensure that we are representative as we do that examination and invite the ccTLD managers themselves, not ask the governments what the ccTLDs do. There are several models of CcTLDS. :-) -----Original Message----- From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Bruce Tonkin Sent: Friday, July 14, 2006 3:53 AM To: Council GNSO Subject: RE: [council] Proposed WHOIS motion for 20 July 2006 Hello All,
(3) The Council will undertake a dialogue with governments, via the GAC, to work towards developing a broadly understandable definition of the minimum [AND MAXIMUM] purposes for which the current data required in the Registrar Accreditation Agreement (see clause 3.4 of http://www.icann.org/registrars/ra-agreement-17may01.htm ), as listed below, is collected and retained AND USED. The dialogue should seek to [EXAMINE] [balance] privacy and law enforcement [VIEWS AND PERSPECTIVES AND concerns IN
core values, and [must] take into account the views of law enforcement agencies, CONSUMER PROTECTION/ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES, data
CONJUNCTION with ICANN's mission and protection authorities, the
policies and rules of access to ccTLD data, and relevant national laws.
An alternative wording for the last sentence is: The purpose of the dialogue should be to seek, to the extent reasonably possible, A balance of privacy, CONSUMER PROTECTION, and law enforcement PERSEPCTIVES AND concerns with ICANN's mission and core values, and may also consider the views of data protection authorities, the policies and rules of access to ccTLD data, and relevant national laws. Regards, Bruce Tonkin
Dear Bruce and fellow Councilors, I have some concerns about the wording in the draft resolution, even with the improvements that the Chair has proposed. I have provided a redraft, and explain below the rationale for the suggested edits. However, I strongly recommend that we ask for advise and assistance in drafting resolutions from the Assistant General Counsel. I recall that when Louie was GC, we were often supported in drafting of complex resolutions, and given the sensitivities of where we are, I ask that we engage Dan's assistance and counsel, including joining us on the call. 1) I understand -- I THINK -- from the draft below that the goal is to be consistent with ICANN's mission and core values. However, that is not how the language presently reads -- and any translation of the present draft into other languages will be even more confusing. We need to be careful not to put our TFS, or ourselves as the Council into the role of interpreting the role of governments in areas such as consumer protection, law enforcement, or privacy. 2) Consumer Protection should be shown as a separate category in any drafting, along with privacy/data protection authorities/agencies, and law enforcement. 3) UNDERSTANDIGN WHAT CCTLDS DO IS USEFUL. Several have well established practices and policies, but we need to ensure that we look at a group that is representative as we do that examination and invite the ccTLD managers themselves, not ask the governments what the ccTLDs do. There are several models of CcTLDS. :-) I also prefer that we ask the ccTLD managers, and that may mean that we go beyond the ccNSO. One good way to do this is to repeat a session with the ccTLD managers that we did a few years ago, where we invited ccTLD managers to a consultation and spent some considerable time in dialogue. We could work jointly with the CCTLD Managers, assisted by the ccNSO 5) I am not supportive of eliminating a consultation with the SSAC. I was very troubled to learn that the SSAC had, on their own, after a conversation or two, decided to get engaged in developing a solution to WHOIS. There was no formal discussion with the Council on this topic, and apparently, they didn't understand the need to work closely, and transparently, with the COUNCIL, who is responsible for policy for gTLDS. I'd like to reinsert the inclusion of the SSAC as a group that the Council will work closely with. In my view, the Chair of the SSAC should join the Council in our discussions with the GAC/representatives of governments. I HAVE MARKED UP THE DRAFT BY INSERTING NEW LANGAUGE IN CAPS, AND USING [ ] TO SHOW DELETIONS. A DRAFT, WITHOUT MARK UP, IS PASTED HERE: (3) The Council will undertake a dialogue with governments, via the GAC, and to include the SSAC, to work towards developing a broadly understandable definition of the purposes for which the current data required in the Registrar Accreditation Agreement (see clause 3.4 of http://www.icann.org/registrars/ra-agreement-17may01.htm ), as listed below, is collected, retained and used. The dialogue should seek to examine and understand consumer protection, privacy/data protection and law enforcement views and perspectives and concerns, taking into account ICANN's mission and core values. In addition, to inform the Council's deliberations, this dialogue and examination should include gathering information and discourse with a representative group of ccTLD managers regarding their policies and rules of access to ccTLD data, and relevant national laws. -----Original Message----- From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Bruce Tonkin Sent: Friday, July 14, 2006 3:53 AM To: Council GNSO Subject: RE: [council] Proposed WHOIS motion for 20 July 2006 Hello All,
(3) The Council will undertake a dialogue with governments, via the GAC, AND TO INCLUDE THE SSAC, to work towards developing a broadly
understandable definition of the [minimum] purposes for which the current data required in the Registrar Accreditation Agreement (see clause 3.4 of http://www.icann.org/registrars/ra-agreement-17may01.htm ), as listed below, is collected,[ and] retained AND USED. The dialogue should seek to EXAMINE AND UNDERSTAND CONSUMER PROTECTION, [balance] privacy and law enforcement VIEWS AND PERSPECTIVES AND concerns, TAKING INTO ACCOUNT [with] ICANN's mission and core values.[, and [must] take into account the views of law enforcement agencies, data
protection authorities,] IN ADDITION, TO INFORM THE COUNCIL'S DELIBERATIONS, THIS DIALOGUE AND EXAMINATION CAN INCLUDE the
policies and rules of access to ccTLD data, and relevant national laws.
An alternative wording for the last sentence is: The purpose of the dialogue should be to seek, to the extent reasonably possible, A balance of privacy, CONSUMER PROTECTION, and law enforcement PERSEPCTIVES AND concerns with ICANN's mission and core values, and may also consider the views of data protection authorities, the policies and rules of access to ccTLD data, and relevant national laws. Regards, Bruce Tonkin
Dear all, As an FYI before we hear from the ccTLDs, we should ensure that all Council members have read CENTR's report on Whois, attached in this email. That should help councillors frame any further enquiries. All the best, Maria -----Original Message----- From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Marilyn Cade Sent: Monday, July 17, 2006 6:59 AM To: 'Bruce Tonkin'; 'Council GNSO'; 'Daniel Halloran'; 'Denise Michel' Subject: RE: [council] Proposed WHOIS motion for 20 July 2006-- suggested edits and proposal for working with the ccTLD managers and SSAC Dear Bruce and fellow Councilors, I have some concerns about the wording in the draft resolution, even with the improvements that the Chair has proposed. I have provided a redraft, and explain below the rationale for the suggested edits. However, I strongly recommend that we ask for advise and assistance in drafting resolutions from the Assistant General Counsel. I recall that when Louie was GC, we were often supported in drafting of complex resolutions, and given the sensitivities of where we are, I ask that we engage Dan's assistance and counsel, including joining us on the call. 1) I understand -- I THINK -- from the draft below that the goal is to be consistent with ICANN's mission and core values. However, that is not how the language presently reads -- and any translation of the present draft into other languages will be even more confusing. We need to be careful not to put our TFS, or ourselves as the Council into the role of interpreting the role of governments in areas such as consumer protection, law enforcement, or privacy. 2) Consumer Protection should be shown as a separate category in any drafting, along with privacy/data protection authorities/agencies, and law enforcement. 3) UNDERSTANDIGN WHAT CCTLDS DO IS USEFUL. Several have well established practices and policies, but we need to ensure that we look at a group that is representative as we do that examination and invite the ccTLD managers themselves, not ask the governments what the ccTLDs do. There are several models of CcTLDS. :-) I also prefer that we ask the ccTLD managers, and that may mean that we go beyond the ccNSO. One good way to do this is to repeat a session with the ccTLD managers that we did a few years ago, where we invited ccTLD managers to a consultation and spent some considerable time in dialogue. We could work jointly with the CCTLD Managers, assisted by the ccNSO 5) I am not supportive of eliminating a consultation with the SSAC. I was very troubled to learn that the SSAC had, on their own, after a conversation or two, decided to get engaged in developing a solution to WHOIS. There was no formal discussion with the Council on this topic, and apparently, they didn't understand the need to work closely, and transparently, with the COUNCIL, who is responsible for policy for gTLDS. I'd like to reinsert the inclusion of the SSAC as a group that the Council will work closely with. In my view, the Chair of the SSAC should join the Council in our discussions with the GAC/representatives of governments. I HAVE MARKED UP THE DRAFT BY INSERTING NEW LANGAUGE IN CAPS, AND USING [ ] TO SHOW DELETIONS. A DRAFT, WITHOUT MARK UP, IS PASTED HERE: (3) The Council will undertake a dialogue with governments, via the GAC, and to include the SSAC, to work towards developing a broadly understandable definition of the purposes for which the current data required in the Registrar Accreditation Agreement (see clause 3.4 of http://www.icann.org/registrars/ra-agreement-17may01.htm ), as listed below, is collected, retained and used. The dialogue should seek to examine and understand consumer protection, privacy/data protection and law enforcement views and perspectives and concerns, taking into account ICANN's mission and core values. In addition, to inform the Council's deliberations, this dialogue and examination should include gathering information and discourse with a representative group of ccTLD managers regarding their policies and rules of access to ccTLD data, and relevant national laws. -----Original Message----- From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Bruce Tonkin Sent: Friday, July 14, 2006 3:53 AM To: Council GNSO Subject: RE: [council] Proposed WHOIS motion for 20 July 2006 Hello All,
(3) The Council will undertake a dialogue with governments, via the GAC, AND TO INCLUDE THE SSAC, to work towards developing a broadly
understandable definition of the [minimum] purposes for which the current data required in the Registrar Accreditation Agreement (see clause 3.4 of http://www.icann.org/registrars/ra-agreement-17may01.htm ), as listed below, is collected,[ and] retained AND USED. The dialogue should seek to EXAMINE AND UNDERSTAND CONSUMER PROTECTION, [balance] privacy and law enforcement VIEWS AND PERSPECTIVES AND concerns, TAKING INTO ACCOUNT [with] ICANN's mission and core values.[, and [must] take into account the views of law enforcement agencies, data
protection authorities,] IN ADDITION, TO INFORM THE COUNCIL'S DELIBERATIONS, THIS DIALOGUE AND EXAMINATION CAN INCLUDE the
policies and rules of access to ccTLD data, and relevant national laws.
An alternative wording for the last sentence is: The purpose of the dialogue should be to seek, to the extent reasonably possible, A balance of privacy, CONSUMER PROTECTION, and law enforcement PERSEPCTIVES AND concerns with ICANN's mission and core values, and may also consider the views of data protection authorities, the policies and rules of access to ccTLD data, and relevant national laws. Regards, Bruce Tonkin
I appreciate staff starting data gathering in support of a draft resolution, and I've actually already red the CENTR report but more importantly, I ask that we put a 'hold' on distributing further reports to the Council until we get agreement on the Resolution and the associated work plan, which needs to be developed and agreed to by Council. One personal problem I have is that I can't absorb occasional materials, set up personal tracking of such documents, and still keep my sanity and organize my time devoted to ICANN effectively. :-) May be a personal limitation, but I'm much in need of improved systematic approaches in the distribution and management of ICANN documents and supporting interactions. So, my priority for Thursday's call has to be preparation for agreeing on a resolution, and the rest of the agenda's work items. According, can I ask that for now, staff hold off on sending additional background materials to the Council to read on this topic? Perhaps you can just continue to gather relevant materials and then we can see what is available in documented form that is 'representative', recognizing that there are many different approaches within the ccTLD community. On Thursday's call, if the Council supports, let's get agreement on an organized approach that can make sense, and put things into a work plan that is documented, and therefore, can be scheduled around. Since we are proposing a joint effort with the GAC, and I've recommended that we include the SSAC, it would then be critical to have any materials made available simultaneously, to all parties, once there is agreement on how we are going to interact with the GAC and SSAC. RESOLUTION ITSELF: I've posted suggested edits and would like to see that discussed by fellow Councilors on the list, so perhaps we can get to some agreement on language. I also asked for the Assistant General Counsel to be on our call on Thursday and to review the resolution, and hopefully, that can move forward. Finally, for the agenda on Thursday, as part of the discussion of the Resolution draft, Bruce, I ask that as we discuss the draft Resolution, that we discuss an approach to identifying 'representative ness', so then we put the CENTR document, for instance, in the mix of materials as background. However, we need to plan to have a dialogue with various ccTLD managers. If you take .de for instance, many will recall that the TF did a call with DENIC, and learned first hand from the senior managers there how they manage and balance the privacy laws in Germany with the requirement of transparency when one is operating a publicly accessible web site. Marilyn Cade BC Councilor -----Original Message----- From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Maria Farrell Sent: Monday, July 17, 2006 10:24 AM To: 'Marilyn Cade'; 'Bruce Tonkin'; 'Council GNSO'; 'Daniel Halloran'; 'Denise Michel' Subject: RE: [council] Proposed WHOIS motion for 20 July 2006-- suggested edits and proposal for working with the ccTLD managers and SSAC Dear all, As an FYI before we hear from the ccTLDs, we should ensure that all Council members have read CENTR's report on Whois, attached in this email. That should help councillors frame any further enquiries. All the best, Maria -----Original Message----- From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Marilyn Cade Sent: Monday, July 17, 2006 6:59 AM To: 'Bruce Tonkin'; 'Council GNSO'; 'Daniel Halloran'; 'Denise Michel' Subject: RE: [council] Proposed WHOIS motion for 20 July 2006-- suggested edits and proposal for working with the ccTLD managers and SSAC Dear Bruce and fellow Councilors, I have some concerns about the wording in the draft resolution, even with the improvements that the Chair has proposed. I have provided a redraft, and explain below the rationale for the suggested edits. However, I strongly recommend that we ask for advise and assistance in drafting resolutions from the Assistant General Counsel. I recall that when Louie was GC, we were often supported in drafting of complex resolutions, and given the sensitivities of where we are, I ask that we engage Dan's assistance and counsel, including joining us on the call. 1) I understand -- I THINK -- from the draft below that the goal is to be consistent with ICANN's mission and core values. However, that is not how the language presently reads -- and any translation of the present draft into other languages will be even more confusing. We need to be careful not to put our TFS, or ourselves as the Council into the role of interpreting the role of governments in areas such as consumer protection, law enforcement, or privacy. 2) Consumer Protection should be shown as a separate category in any drafting, along with privacy/data protection authorities/agencies, and law enforcement. 3) UNDERSTANDIGN WHAT CCTLDS DO IS USEFUL. Several have well established practices and policies, but we need to ensure that we look at a group that is representative as we do that examination and invite the ccTLD managers themselves, not ask the governments what the ccTLDs do. There are several models of CcTLDS. :-) I also prefer that we ask the ccTLD managers, and that may mean that we go beyond the ccNSO. One good way to do this is to repeat a session with the ccTLD managers that we did a few years ago, where we invited ccTLD managers to a consultation and spent some considerable time in dialogue. We could work jointly with the CCTLD Managers, assisted by the ccNSO 5) I am not supportive of eliminating a consultation with the SSAC. I was very troubled to learn that the SSAC had, on their own, after a conversation or two, decided to get engaged in developing a solution to WHOIS. There was no formal discussion with the Council on this topic, and apparently, they didn't understand the need to work closely, and transparently, with the COUNCIL, who is responsible for policy for gTLDS. I'd like to reinsert the inclusion of the SSAC as a group that the Council will work closely with. In my view, the Chair of the SSAC should join the Council in our discussions with the GAC/representatives of governments. I HAVE MARKED UP THE DRAFT BY INSERTING NEW LANGAUGE IN CAPS, AND USING [ ] TO SHOW DELETIONS. A DRAFT, WITHOUT MARK UP, IS PASTED HERE: (3) The Council will undertake a dialogue with governments, via the GAC, and to include the SSAC, to work towards developing a broadly understandable definition of the purposes for which the current data required in the Registrar Accreditation Agreement (see clause 3.4 of http://www.icann.org/registrars/ra-agreement-17may01.htm ), as listed below, is collected, retained and used. The dialogue should seek to examine and understand consumer protection, privacy/data protection and law enforcement views and perspectives and concerns, taking into account ICANN's mission and core values. In addition, to inform the Council's deliberations, this dialogue and examination should include gathering information and discourse with a representative group of ccTLD managers regarding their policies and rules of access to ccTLD data, and relevant national laws. -----Original Message----- From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Bruce Tonkin Sent: Friday, July 14, 2006 3:53 AM To: Council GNSO Subject: RE: [council] Proposed WHOIS motion for 20 July 2006 Hello All,
(3) The Council will undertake a dialogue with governments, via the GAC, AND TO INCLUDE THE SSAC, to work towards developing a broadly
understandable definition of the [minimum] purposes for which the current data required in the Registrar Accreditation Agreement (see clause 3.4 of http://www.icann.org/registrars/ra-agreement-17may01.htm ), as listed below, is collected,[ and] retained AND USED. The dialogue should seek to EXAMINE AND UNDERSTAND CONSUMER PROTECTION, [balance] privacy and law enforcement VIEWS AND PERSPECTIVES AND concerns, TAKING INTO ACCOUNT [with] ICANN's mission and core values.[, and [must] take into account the views of law enforcement agencies, data
protection authorities,] IN ADDITION, TO INFORM THE COUNCIL'S DELIBERATIONS, THIS DIALOGUE AND EXAMINATION CAN INCLUDE the
policies and rules of access to ccTLD data, and relevant national laws.
An alternative wording for the last sentence is: The purpose of the dialogue should be to seek, to the extent reasonably possible, A balance of privacy, CONSUMER PROTECTION, and law enforcement PERSEPCTIVES AND concerns with ICANN's mission and core values, and may also consider the views of data protection authorities, the policies and rules of access to ccTLD data, and relevant national laws. Regards, Bruce Tonkin
On 17 jul 2006, at 11.53, Marilyn Cade wrote:
I ask that we put a 'hold' on distributing further reports to the Council until we get agreement on the Resolution and the associated work plan,
I appreciate the delviery of reports to the council (though I prefer to get them by means other then email - but that is beside the point) and especially appreciate the delivery of something as relevant as the Centr Whois report. I think the more info we have to peruse the better. And it is not necessary that everyone read everything, i can't do it either, but I do believe that it is better that we all have the opportunity to read everything we wish to read. I certainly don't want to suggest that Marilyn's mailbox be filled with unwanted documents (that would be to advocate spam). But I would like to suggest that documents continue to be made available to those who wish to read them. This can be done either through the use of Shinkuro, or though a web archive. thanks a.
participants (4)
-
Avri Doria -
Bruce Tonkin -
Maria Farrell -
Marilyn Cade