Re: [registrars] Bulk Whois Ballot

["Elliot Noss" <enoss@tucows.com>]

I would like to agree with Brian here. I would also note 
two things further. First, the IP and BC folks that I have 
spoken to, who are generally well-informed as to their 
constituencies views, are interested in access to data for 
their purposes and readily acknowledge that the current 
Bulk Whois approach DOES NOT provide it.

Second, and it would be helpful if Brian could also share 
this information, we do NOT have subscribers to the data 
who use it for those purposes and have virtually NO 
enquiries from folks who want to use it for other than 
commercial purposes. These are simply empirical facts.

I would strongly argue against the friendly amendment.

Regards

On Wed, 19 Mar 2003 11:46:39 -0500
  "Cute, Brian" <bcute@networksolutions.com> wrote:
>Michael,
>
>I agree with you that sending a signal to other 
>constituencies that we are
>willing to work with them through a given process is 
>important.  However, I
>think we can achieve that in other ways.  The motion 
>calls for the
>elimination of Bulk WHOIS.  The position is by nature 
>extreme in the sense
>that it is not really a negotiable position at the outset 
>-- we would not
>settle for partial elimination or unduly delayed 
>elimination, right?  The
>real issue for other constituencies is whether they can 
>live with the impact
>of its elimination or not.  That's where the heavy 
>lifting, in terms of
>persuasion, will come in for us.  
>For better or worse, I don't believe that hard core 
>opponents will be swayed
>by softening the motion.  I think that outreach to 
>potential supporters will
>be best made once our position is in play.  What's 
>important is that, when
>we refer the motion -- if approved by ballot -- we will 
>be asking ICANN to
>initiate a policy making process that by design 
>incorporates all
>constituencies' voices.       
>
>Therefore, I would suggest that the motion go to ballot 
>as written.  I agree
>that it should be on extended voting of 2 weeks.  I think 
>we should discuss
>fully the point you raise and our strategy in moving this 
>forward as an
>agenda item in Rio.
>
>Regards,
>Brian
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Michael D. Palage [mailto:michael@palage.com]
>Sent: Wednesday, March 19, 2003 10:34 AM
>To: registrars@dnso.org
>Subject: [registrars] Bulk Whois Ballot
>
>
>Brian:
>
>Thank you for sending this proposed ballot and supporting 
>documentation to
>the Registrar Executive Committee. I will ask Rick to 
>create a ballot with
>an extended voting window (2 weeks) on this proposal. 
>Having talked to a
>number of constituencies over the past couple of weeks on 
>this matter I
>would like to offer the following friendly amendment. 
>Specially, the
>preamble should read "The Registrar Constituency proposes 
>that ICANN TAKE
>AFFIRMATIVE STEPS TOWARDS eliminating the Bulk WHOIS 
>obligation".
>
>The reason for this friendly amendment is as follows. 
>First, I believe it is
>a more prudently worded statement that gives our 
>constituency and names
>council representatives more flexibility in achieving the 
>desired result of
>removing the Bulk Access provisions. I believe the 
>original worded document
>would unreasonably alienate the business and intellectual 
>property
>constituencies that would be worried about third party 
>intellectual property
>monitoring services. Some of these services which are 
>offered by a number of
>ICANN accredited registrars and members of this 
>constituency.
>
>Second, I believe that providing the names council or the 
>ICANN Board with
>ultimatums is never a productive negotiating skill. 
>Moreover, rewriting the
>bi-lateral contracts between ICANN and accredited 
>registrars may not be as
>easy as some people think. I will dig up some 
>correspondence that ICANN
>provided last year on this matter.
>
>I believe that registrars working in conjunction with the 
>user community
>whose concerns about privacy have long been ignored, 
>along with the
>intellectual property constituency is the best way to 
>achieve a
>comprehensive "TIMELY" solution to a Whois model that 
>fails to meet the
>needs of most Internet stakeholders. I believe that by 
>working together we
>can achieve a common goal much more quickly than if we 
>were to advance a
>solution that only addressed our concerns.
>
>Just my two cents for what it is worth.
>
>Mike
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Cute, Brian [mailto:bcute@networksolutions.com]
>Sent: Monday, March 17, 2003 5:12 PM
>To: 'michael@palage.com'; 'bevans@interaccess.com'; 
>'tmdenton@magma.ca';
>'wessorh@ar.com'
>Subject: FW: [registrars] Motion
>
>
>Having put the duly seconded motion to discussion and 
>seeing no proposed
>amendments or dissent during the discussion period, I ask 
>the excom put the
>motion to ballot.  The motion proposed a formal position 
>to be taken by the
>rc that, if supported by a majority after being put to 
>ballot, will be
>communicated to the Council and the ICANN Board.  The 
>position is stated as
>follows:
>
>
>"The Registrar Constituency proposes that ICANN eliminate 
>the
>Bulk WHOIS obligation since it: forces registrars to sell 
>one
>of their most valuable assets -- their entire customer 
>list
>-- to competitors and third parties; raises significant
>privacy concerns for both registrants and registrars; and
>harms consumers by contributing to unsolicitied marketing
>campaigns."
>
>
>
>[] I support the statement as a formal position of the 
>Registrar
>Constituency;
>
>[] I  do not support the statement as a formal position 
>of the Registrar
>Consituency;
>
>[] Abstain.
>
>
>Note to excom: If the above requires substantive edits, I 
>would be happy to
>resubmit.
>
>Regards,
>Brian
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Cute, Brian
>Sent: Monday, March 10, 2003 3:38 PM
>To: 'Registrars@dnso.org'
>Subject: RE: [registrars] Motion
>
>
>All,
>
>Having seen a second to the motion and initial support 
>with no objections or
>dissent, I suggest that we keep the discussion period on 
>this motion open
>until 4:00 p.m. EST Monday, March 17, 2003.  At that 
>time, based on inputs
>and amendments, if any, the constituency could refer the 
>motion to the excom
>for purposes of putting the question to ballot.
>
>Brian
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Tim Ruiz [mailto:tim@godaddy.com]
>Sent: Saturday, March 08, 2003 8:10 AM
>To: paul@internetters.co.uk
>Cc: ross@tucows.com; bcute@networksolutions.com; 
>Registrars@dnso.org
>Subject: RE: [registrars] Motion
>
>
>Go Daddy Software and Wild West Domains supports this 
>motion as well.
>
>Tim
>
>  -------- Original Message --------
>    Subject: RE: [registrars] Motion
>    From: Paul Westley <paul@internetters.co.uk>
>    Date: Fri, March 7, 2003 4:11 pm
>    To: <ross@tucows.com>, "'Cute, Brian'" 
><bcute@networksolutions.com>,
>          <Registrars@dnso.org>
>
>    Is it possible to "third" or otherwise support this 
>motion?
>
>    Paul Westley
>    Internetters
>    UK
>
>    At 04:59 PM 07/03/2003 -0500, Ross Wm. Rader wrote:
>    > > I move that the constituency adopt the following 
>position to
>    > > be subsequently communicated to the Council and 
>Board
>    >
>    >I would happily second this.
>    >
>    >(And note for the record that this would be only the 
>second time that
>    >I have publicly agreed with the esteemed 
>representative from Network
>    >Solutions :)
>    >
>    >
>    >
>    >                        -rwr
>    >
>    >
>    >
>    >
>    >"There's a fine line between fishing and standing on 
>the shore like
>    >an idiot."
>    >- Steven Wright
>    >
>    >Get Blog... http://www.byte.org/
>    >
>    >
>    >
>    >
>    > > -----Original Message-----
>    > > From: owner-registrars@dnso.org
>    > > [mailto:owner-registrars@dnso.org] On Behalf Of 
>Cute, Brian
>    > > Sent: Friday, March 07, 2003 4:44 PM
>    > > To: 'Registrars@dnso.org'
>    > > Subject: [registrars] Motion
>    > >
>    > >
>    > > All,
>    > >
>    > > I move that the constituency adopt the following 
>position to
>    > > be subsequently communicated to the Council and 
>Board:
>    > >
>    > > "The Registrar Constituency proposes that ICANN 
>eliminate the
>    > > Bulk WHOIS obligation since it: forces registrars 
>to sell one
>    > > of their most valuable assets -- their entire 
>customer list
>    > > -- to competitors and third parties; raises 
>significant
>    > > privacy concerns for both registrants and 
>registrars; and
>    > > harms consumers by contributing to unsolicitied 
>marketing
>    > > campaigns." [end]
>    > >
>    > > Regards,
>    > > Brian
>    > >
>    > >
>