All, The BC agrees with the WG that further study of WHOIS issues is warranted, however we believe the recommended studies should be conducted in phases so as to potentially conserve ICANN resources in the event that early studies show that later planned studies are not warranted or should be modified. Here is a proposed resolution from the Business Constituency: 1. The GNSO Council hereby accepts the WG report and acknowledges the tremendous effort by WG participants and ICANN staff. 2. The GNSO Council particularly recognizes the WG chair for his adept leadership through a contentious and controversial WG process. 3. The GNSO Council does not consider the WG report as an adequate basis for any implementation of OPOC. 4. The GNSO Council requests that ICANN staff proceed with the 4 studies described in Section 8 of the WG report, as follows: 1. Proceed with study 4 on the characteristics of the Whois database first. This study should include a review and analysis of the different proxy services. 2. Following completion of study 4, and to the extent it reveals that there is a problem with the current Whois policy, ICANN Staff should proceed with study one - the cost/benefit analysis. Completion of study 4 should help determine the parameters of the cost/benefit analysis, since the scope of the problem will be known and documented. 3. To the extent that the cost/benefit analysis determines that the benefits of changing the Whois policy exceed the costs, ICANN Staff should proceed with a third study that merges study two on self-certification (this should include an analysis of an ex post facto review mechanism) and study 3 on authentication (which should include authentication of any parties with a legitimate interest in the data). Thanks. Mike Rodenbaugh Officer, Business and Commercial Users Constituency
The Intellectual Property Constituency agrees with and supports the proposed resolution from the Business Constituency. Kristina Rosette ________________________________ From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Mike Rodenbaugh Sent: Wednesday, August 29, 2007 11:13 AM To: GNSO Council Subject: [council] BC proposal re WHOIS All, The BC agrees with the WG that further study of WHOIS issues is warranted, however we believe the recommended studies should be conducted in phases so as to potentially conserve ICANN resources in the event that early studies show that later planned studies are not warranted or should be modified. Here is a proposed resolution from the Business Constituency: 1. The GNSO Council hereby accepts the WG report and acknowledges the tremendous effort by WG participants and ICANN staff. 2. The GNSO Council particularly recognizes the WG chair for his adept leadership through a contentious and controversial WG process. 3. The GNSO Council does not consider the WG report as an adequate basis for any implementation of OPOC. 4. The GNSO Council requests that ICANN staff proceed with the 4 studies described in Section 8 of the WG report, as follows: 1. Proceed with study 4 on the characteristics of the Whois database first. This study should include a review and analysis of the different proxy services. 2. Following completion of study 4, and to the extent it reveals that there is a problem with the current Whois policy, ICANN Staff should proceed with study one - the cost/benefit analysis. Completion of study 4 should help determine the parameters of the cost/benefit analysis, since the scope of the problem will be known and documented. 3. To the extent that the cost/benefit analysis determines that the benefits of changing the Whois policy exceed the costs, ICANN Staff should proceed with a third study that merges study two on self-certification (this should include an analysis of an ex post facto review mechanism) and study 3 on authentication (which should include authentication of any parties with a legitimate interest in the data). Thanks. Mike Rodenbaugh Officer, Business and Commercial Users Constituency
And the NCUC certainly does not agree with this resolution project: 1. It's surprising that there are people who still don't see that there's a problem with the current Whois policy ("study 4, and to the extent it reveals that there is a problem with the current Whois policy,...") This would be, I'm afraid, a waste of ICANN's resources and brave people's time, once more. 2. There a fact: Whois policy is in conflict with national laws (and even more than the number of them we hear about.) Then what is that policy, meant to be global, where exceptions become a routine? 3. What will be the terms of the cost/benefit analysis in order to provide a comprehensive basis for evaluation? How are they going to account for the political conundrum? Mawaki --- "Rosette, Kristina" <krosette@cov.com> wrote:
The Intellectual Property Constituency agrees with and supports the proposed resolution from the Business Constituency.
Kristina Rosette
________________________________
From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Mike Rodenbaugh Sent: Wednesday, August 29, 2007 11:13 AM To: GNSO Council Subject: [council] BC proposal re WHOIS
All,
The BC agrees with the WG that further study of WHOIS issues is warranted, however we believe the recommended studies should be conducted in phases so as to potentially conserve ICANN resources in the event that early studies show that later planned studies are not warranted or should be modified.
Here is a proposed resolution from the Business Constituency:
1. The GNSO Council hereby accepts the WG report and acknowledges the tremendous effort by WG participants and ICANN staff. 2. The GNSO Council particularly recognizes the WG chair for his adept leadership through a contentious and controversial WG process. 3. The GNSO Council does not consider the WG report as an adequate basis for any implementation of OPOC. 4. The GNSO Council requests that ICANN staff proceed with the 4 studies described in Section 8 of the WG report, as follows:
1. Proceed with study 4 on the characteristics of the Whois database first. This study should include a review and analysis of the different proxy services. 2. Following completion of study 4, and to the extent it reveals that there is a problem with the current Whois policy, ICANN Staff should proceed with study one - the cost/benefit analysis. Completion of study 4 should help determine the parameters of the cost/benefit analysis, since the scope of the problem will be known and documented. 3. To the extent that the cost/benefit analysis determines that the benefits of changing the Whois policy exceed the costs, ICANN Staff should proceed with a third study that merges study two on self-certification (this should include an analysis of an ex post facto review mechanism) and study 3 on authentication (which should include authentication of any parties with a legitimate interest in the data).
Thanks.
Mike Rodenbaugh
Officer, Business and Commercial Users Constituency
As an initial matter, the GAC Principles Regarding gTLD Whois Services specifically recommend that information should be gathered "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." The GAC Chair specifically noted this recommendation in our joint meetings in both Lisbon and San Juan. To the best of my knowledge, we have not acted on this recommendation. I believe we have an obligation to do so. That action may be to undertake the study, as proposed in the resolution below. That action may also be to reject the recommendation, and provide our reasoning for doing so. To simply ignore the recommendation, which it appears to me that we have done thus far, seems to me to be counterproductive to the long-term functionality of the ICANN organizational structure. Having said that, I don't believe we have the quantitative and qualitative information that should be considered before making a dramatic change in policy. Indeed, the existence of the ad hoc group on domain tasting demonstrates our recognition that such data is an important input for policy considerations. Why is Whois any different? To the best of my knowledge, we don't have data on the type of abuse and the scale of abuse. We also don't have data as to how often law enforcement uses Whois data, how often the private sector uses it to prevent and fight consumer harm caused by phishing and counterfeiting, and how often the private sector uses it for other purposes such as verifying "ownership" of a domain name (or, more often, a portfolio of names) in connection with a business transaction such as a merger or acquisition, for securitization of loans, for satisfying creditors of an entity in bankruptcy, or simply to sell the name. For example, it's a safe bet that the domain auction at the recent Domain Roundtable would not have produced nearly $ 3.8 million in sales (or any at all, for that matter) if the purchasers could not verify in real-time that the purported seller was actually the registrant. Your other points are important ones and, in my view, the fact that these questions exist means that we're not close to being finished. Kristina -----Original Message----- From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Mawaki Chango Sent: Thursday, August 30, 2007 8:02 AM To: Mike Rodenbaugh; GNSO Council Subject: RE: [council] BC proposal re WHOIS And the NCUC certainly does not agree with this resolution project: 1. It's surprising that there are people who still don't see that there's a problem with the current Whois policy ("study 4, and to the extent it reveals that there is a problem with the current Whois policy,...") This would be, I'm afraid, a waste of ICANN's resources and brave people's time, once more. 2. There a fact: Whois policy is in conflict with national laws (and even more than the number of them we hear about.) Then what is that policy, meant to be global, where exceptions become a routine? 3. What will be the terms of the cost/benefit analysis in order to provide a comprehensive basis for evaluation? How are they going to account for the political conundrum? Mawaki --- "Rosette, Kristina" <krosette@cov.com> wrote:
The Intellectual Property Constituency agrees with and supports the proposed resolution from the Business Constituency.
Kristina Rosette
________________________________
From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Mike Rodenbaugh Sent: Wednesday, August 29, 2007 11:13 AM To: GNSO Council Subject: [council] BC proposal re WHOIS
All,
The BC agrees with the WG that further study of WHOIS issues is warranted, however we believe the recommended studies should be conducted in phases so as to potentially conserve ICANN resources in the event that early studies show that later planned studies are not warranted or should be modified.
Here is a proposed resolution from the Business Constituency:
1. The GNSO Council hereby accepts the WG report and acknowledges the tremendous effort by WG participants and ICANN staff. 2. The GNSO Council particularly recognizes the WG chair for his adept leadership through a contentious and controversial WG process. 3. The GNSO Council does not consider the WG report as an adequate basis for any implementation of OPOC. 4. The GNSO Council requests that ICANN staff proceed with the 4 studies described in Section 8 of the WG report, as follows:
1. Proceed with study 4 on the characteristics of the Whois database first. This study should include a review and analysis of the different proxy services. 2. Following completion of study 4, and to the extent it reveals that there is a problem with the current Whois policy, ICANN Staff should proceed with study one - the cost/benefit analysis. Completion of study 4 should help determine the parameters of the cost/benefit analysis, since the scope of the problem will be known and documented. 3. To the extent that the cost/benefit analysis determines that the benefits of changing the Whois policy exceed the costs, ICANN Staff should proceed with a third study that merges study
two on self-certification (this should include an analysis of an ex post facto review mechanism) and study 3 on authentication (which should include authentication of any parties with a legitimate interest in the data).
Thanks.
Mike Rodenbaugh
Officer, Business and Commercial Users Constituency
Indeed, the Whois work may not be close to be finished... But this is not necessarily to say the GNSO Council is not. All the uses that you mention are recognized by all, even by the NCUC. And since you mention the GAC Principles, they too recognized those _uses_ as legitimate, but they also state that that is not the Whois _purpose_ and that national laws must be taken into account. Now, maybe that is too much of responsibility for the GNSO council, maybe there is a need for political decisions to be made here, maybe it is time that governments proactively tackle the issue, agree among themselves and decide whether a uniform, global Whois policy is possible at all, and if so, with what modalities, etc. and provide ICANN and the GNSO council a valid and stable legal framework to work with. One thing for sure, having ICANN require organizations by contract to break the law in their jurisdiction is not a sustainable solution, not even for the sake of hunting down delinquents and criminals. If the initial and ultimate objective for the council work was to develop a consensus policy, that obviously is not possible under the present circumstances - we are not anywhere near to come up with a consensus among not just the GNSO's, but the Internet stakeholders. Maybe it's just time that we recognize that. Mawaki --- "Rosette, Kristina" <krosette@cov.com> wrote:
As an initial matter, the GAC Principles Regarding gTLD Whois Services specifically recommend that information should be gathered "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."
The GAC Chair specifically noted this recommendation in our joint meetings in both Lisbon and San Juan. To the best of my knowledge, we have not acted on this recommendation. I believe we have an obligation to do so. That action may be to undertake the study, as proposed in the resolution below. That action may also be to reject the recommendation, and provide our reasoning for doing so. To simply ignore the recommendation, which it appears to me that we have done thus far, seems to me to be counterproductive to the long-term functionality of the ICANN organizational structure.
Having said that, I don't believe we have the quantitative and qualitative information that should be considered before making a dramatic change in policy. Indeed, the existence of the ad hoc group on domain tasting demonstrates our recognition that such data is an important input for policy considerations. Why is Whois any different?
To the best of my knowledge, we don't have data on the type of abuse and the scale of abuse. We also don't have data as to how often law enforcement uses Whois data, how often the private sector uses it to prevent and fight consumer harm caused by phishing and counterfeiting, and how often the private sector uses it for other purposes such as verifying "ownership" of a domain name (or, more often, a portfolio of names) in connection with a business transaction such as a merger or acquisition, for securitization of loans, for satisfying creditors of an entity in bankruptcy, or simply to sell the name. For example, it's a safe bet that the domain auction at the recent Domain Roundtable would not have produced nearly $ 3.8 million in sales (or any at all, for that matter) if the purchasers could not verify in real-time that the purported seller was actually the registrant.
Your other points are important ones and, in my view, the fact that these questions exist means that we're not close to being finished.
Kristina
-----Original Message----- From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Mawaki Chango Sent: Thursday, August 30, 2007 8:02 AM To: Mike Rodenbaugh; GNSO Council Subject: RE: [council] BC proposal re WHOIS
And the NCUC certainly does not agree with this resolution project:
1. It's surprising that there are people who still don't see that there's a problem with the current Whois policy ("study 4, and to the extent it reveals that there is a problem with the current Whois policy,...") This would be, I'm afraid, a waste of ICANN's resources and brave people's time, once more.
2. There a fact: Whois policy is in conflict with national laws (and even more than the number of them we hear about.) Then what is that policy, meant to be global, where exceptions become a routine?
3. What will be the terms of the cost/benefit analysis in order to provide a comprehensive basis for evaluation? How are they going to account for the political conundrum?
Mawaki
--- "Rosette, Kristina" <krosette@cov.com> wrote:
The Intellectual Property Constituency agrees with and supports the proposed resolution from the Business Constituency.
Kristina Rosette
________________________________
From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Mike Rodenbaugh Sent: Wednesday, August 29, 2007 11:13 AM To: GNSO Council Subject: [council] BC proposal re WHOIS
All,
The BC agrees with the WG that further study of WHOIS issues is warranted, however we believe the recommended studies should be conducted in phases so as to potentially conserve ICANN resources in the event that early studies show that later planned studies are not warranted or should be modified.
Here is a proposed resolution from the Business Constituency:
1. The GNSO Council hereby accepts the WG report and acknowledges the tremendous effort by WG participants and ICANN staff. 2. The GNSO Council particularly recognizes the WG chair for his adept leadership through a contentious and controversial WG process. 3. The GNSO Council does not consider the WG report as an adequate basis for any implementation of OPOC. 4. The GNSO Council requests that ICANN staff proceed with the 4 studies described in Section 8 of the WG report, as follows:
1. Proceed with study 4 on the characteristics of the Whois database first. This study should include a review and analysis of the different proxy services. 2. Following completion of study 4, and to the extent it reveals that there is a problem with the current Whois policy, ICANN Staff should proceed with study one - the cost/benefit analysis. Completion of study 4 should help determine the parameters of the cost/benefit analysis, since the scope of the problem will be known and documented. 3. To the extent that the cost/benefit analysis determines that the benefits of changing the Whois policy exceed the costs, ICANN Staff should proceed with a third study that merges study
two on self-certification (this should include an analysis of an ex post facto review mechanism) and study 3 on authentication (which should include authentication of any parties with a legitimate interest in the data).
Thanks.
Mike Rodenbaugh
Officer, Business and Commercial Users Constituency
Thanks Mawaki. It will be good to hear what the NCUC proposes as next steps. Mike Rodenbaugh -----Original Message----- From: Mawaki Chango [mailto:ki_chango@yahoo.com] Sent: Thursday, August 30, 2007 5:02 AM To: Mike Rodenbaugh; GNSO Council Subject: RE: [council] BC proposal re WHOIS And the NCUC certainly does not agree with this resolution project: 1. It's surprising that there are people who still don't see that there's a problem with the current Whois policy ("study 4, and to the extent it reveals that there is a problem with the current Whois policy,...") This would be, I'm afraid, a waste of ICANN's resources and brave people's time, once more. 2. There a fact: Whois policy is in conflict with national laws (and even more than the number of them we hear about.) Then what is that policy, meant to be global, where exceptions become a routine? 3. What will be the terms of the cost/benefit analysis in order to provide a comprehensive basis for evaluation? How are they going to account for the political conundrum? Mawaki --- "Rosette, Kristina" <krosette@cov.com> wrote:
The Intellectual Property Constituency agrees with and supports the proposed resolution from the Business Constituency.
Kristina Rosette
________________________________
From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Mike Rodenbaugh Sent: Wednesday, August 29, 2007 11:13 AM To: GNSO Council Subject: [council] BC proposal re WHOIS
All,
The BC agrees with the WG that further study of WHOIS issues is warranted, however we believe the recommended studies should be conducted in phases so as to potentially conserve ICANN resources in the event that early studies show that later planned studies are not warranted or should be modified.
Here is a proposed resolution from the Business Constituency:
1. The GNSO Council hereby accepts the WG report and acknowledges the tremendous effort by WG participants and ICANN staff. 2. The GNSO Council particularly recognizes the WG chair for his adept leadership through a contentious and controversial WG process. 3. The GNSO Council does not consider the WG report as an adequate basis for any implementation of OPOC. 4. The GNSO Council requests that ICANN staff proceed with the 4 studies described in Section 8 of the WG report, as follows:
1. Proceed with study 4 on the characteristics of the Whois database first. This study should include a review and analysis of the different proxy services. 2. Following completion of study 4, and to the extent it reveals that there is a problem with the current Whois policy, ICANN Staff should proceed with study one - the cost/benefit analysis. Completion of study 4 should help determine the parameters of the cost/benefit analysis, since the scope of the problem will be known and documented. 3. To the extent that the cost/benefit analysis determines that the benefits of changing the Whois policy exceed the costs, ICANN Staff should proceed with a third study that merges study two on self-certification (this should include an analysis of an ex post facto review mechanism) and study 3 on authentication (which should include authentication of any parties with a legitimate interest in the data).
Thanks.
Mike Rodenbaugh
Officer, Business and Commercial Users Constituency
participants (3)
-
Mawaki Chango
-
Mike Rodenbaugh
-
Rosette, Kristina