RE: [registrars] Privacy issues report submitted to the GNSO council by the non-commercial constituency

["Elana Broitman" <ebroitman@register.com>]

I would agree to your friendly amendment to my motion to recommend to the Registrar Constituency Representatives that they:

a) take no action on the whois accuracy portion of the report until such time as a task force has researched and made recommendations regarding privacy implications;
b) take action to support the bulk whois section of the report; and
c) take action, such as forming a task force, to research and make recommendations regarding the public and Port 43 Whois.

-----Original Message-----
From: Tim Ruiz [mailto:tim@godaddy.com]
Sent: Tuesday, March 11, 2003 11:24 AM
To: Elana Broitman; 'Bruce Tonkin'; registrars@dnso.org
Subject: RE: [registrars] Privacy issues report submitted to the GNSO
council by the non-commercial constituency


I would second the motion to support the report. And I would agree that
attempting to implement the Whois TF recommendations on accuracy without
addressing privacy is premature.

However, I would NOT want to see the recommendation on Bulk Access back
burnered. If anything, we should continue with the motion Brian set
forth to recommend that it be done away with altogether.

Tim

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-registrars@dnso.org [mailto:owner-registrars@dnso.org] On
Behalf Of Elana Broitman
Sent: Tuesday, March 11, 2003 9:50 AM
To: Bruce Tonkin; registrars@dnso.org
Subject: RE: [registrars] Privacy issues report submitted to the GNSO
council by the non-commercial constituency

Bruce - thank you for sending these to the mailing list.  I believe that
Mike has already put this on the agenda, but would a discussion and
straw poll in Rio be sufficient to give you and the other reps guidance
on how to vote?

Clearly, privacy issues have been raised by a number of stake holders in
and outside ICANN.  This report is a very well thought out document and
I support their recommendations for a) addressing the security and
privacy problems posed by public Whois as it is currently constitued;
and b) holding off from  Council action until privacy issues have
received serious deliberation.

If it's appropriate to do so, I would move the Registrar Constituency
vote to support the NomCom report and recommend to its Council
representatives to vote accordingly.

Thanks, Elana

-----Original Message-----
From: Bruce Tonkin [mailto:Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au]
Sent: Monday, March 10, 2003 10:15 PM
To: registrars@dnso.org
Subject: [registrars] Privacy issues report submitted to the GNSO
council by the non-commercial constituency



Hello All,

See the attached report just released by the non-commercial constituency
to the GNSO Council.  I would like to hear registrar views on whether
the issues raised in the report our appropriate for policy action.

The GNSO Council will vote in Rio on whether to initiate policy action.

Regards,
Bruce Tonkin

-----Original Message-----
From: Milton Mueller [mailto:mueller@syr.edu]
Sent: Tuesday, March 11, 2003 1:52 PM
To: Bruce Tonkin
Cc: council@dnso.org
Subject: [council] Privacy report



Dear Bruce:
As promised, attached is the report on Privacy prepared by the 
Noncommercial constituency representative. The report calls for
the creation of a new Task Force to consider privacy issues,
noting that the WHOIS Task Force has failed to submit an
adequate privacy issues report by the March 11 deadline.

Milton Mueller