RE: [registrars] Bulk Whois Ballot

["Bruce Tonkin" <Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au>]

Hello Brian,

Just to be clear - the motion on its own won't start the policy
development process.

The motion proposes a solution (remove requirement for bulk WHOIS
access) to the problem (use of bulk WHOIS for unsolicited marketing).
The first step in the policy development process is to describe the
problem through an issues report.  It is the issues report that must go
to Council for decision.

There is of course no problem with the motion as it certainly describes
a goal.  If the motion passes, the next step is to develop a strategy
for achieving that goal as you describe below.

Note the GNSO council is currently considering two issues reports on
privacy.  If the Council agrees to initiate policy development within
the area of privacy - then the motion may be appropriate as a position
in response to the issue of privacy.

Regards,
Bruce



-----Original Message-----
From: Cute, Brian [mailto:bcute@networksolutions.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, 19 March 2003 11:47 AM
To: 'Michael D. Palage'; registrars@dnso.org

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
   > >
   > >