RE: [registrars] Proposed Ballots

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

I was also concerned that IP interests be protected and had therefore recognized IP in my original ballot.  

There is no doubt in my mind that however ICANN structures the new, improved Whois, it will continue to protect IP holders' ability to protect their rights and effectively go after cyber squatters.  In fact, by protecting contact and other personal information from inappropriate searches, we will enhance the accuracy of the data available to IP interests.  That was one of my goals in originally proposing the privacy-related ballot.

That said, I have seen much support on this list for Ross' formulation, and opposition to Margie's.  I don't believe that with such sentiment, Margie's can be a friendly amendment to Ross'.  Instead, the RC will have to vote on the ballot as last formulated by Ross and a separate amendment as proposed by Margie.  

By the way, I read Ross' language as encompassing IP protection - it just does not "name names" of the "key stakeholders."  Surely, IP interests are among those stakeholders, and the GNSO council can and most likely will include them among the legitimate interests to be accomodated while protecting privacy.

I would urge the ExCom to move to a formulation of a ballot, so that we can finalize this debate.

Regards, Elana

-----Original Message-----
From: Margie Milam [mailto:Margie.Milam@markmonitor.com]
Sent: Wednesday, April 09, 2003 11:33 AM
To: Elana Broitman; ross@tucows.com; registrars@dnso.org
Subject: RE: [registrars] Proposed Ballots


I would like to propose an additional revision to the amendment which would include a reference to intellectual property interests as follows:  
 
"At the same time, the Registrar Constituency recognizes that there may be a number of legitimate reasons, including the protection of intellectual property,  ....
 
"...the Registrar Constituency proposes that the GNSO Council's Privacy Task Force review privacy and intellectual property concerns ...
 
These changes would make it clear that the registrar consituency is concerned about intellectual property interests and would make it more likely that the other consituencies would support the registrar position on this issue.
 
Regards,
 
Margie
 

	-----Original Message----- 
	From: Elana Broitman [mailto:ebroitman@register.com] 
	Sent: Wed 4/9/2003 8:05 AM 
	To: ross@tucows.com; registrars@dnso.org 
	Cc: 
	Subject: RE: [registrars] Proposed Ballots
	
	

	Ross - this looks good - I would support this as a friendly amendment.
	
	Mike - can we get this on the ballot please?
	
	-----Original Message-----
	From: ross@tucows.com
	Sent: Tuesday, April 08, 2003 9:24 PM
	To: registrars@dnso.org
	Cc: Elana Broitman
	Subject: RE: [registrars] Proposed Ballots
	
	
	> Same here Rob. I had earlier considered attempting to put together an
	> amendment to this motion
	
	Elana, I'd like to put forward the following as a friendly amendmentto
	your earlier motion...
	
	Members of the GNSO Registrar Constituency continue to see abuse of
	public Whois databases by spammers, hijackers and  others intending to
	obtain registrant contact data through  automated or otherwise
	high-volume means for inappropriate purposes.  This raises significant
	privacy, technical and operational concerns for consumers, privacy
	advocates, registrars and registries.  At the same time, the Registrar
	Constituency recognizes that there may be a number of  legitimate
	reasons why key stakeholders may seek to obtain  this same contact
	information through sanctioned means.
	
	In order to ensure an appropriate balance for all interests, the
	Registrar Constituency proposes that the GNSO Council's Privacy Task
	Force review privacy concerns related to the Whois protocol, service and
	contractual data provisioning requirements for ICANN gTLD registrars and
	registries and make recommendations to limit the availability of such
	data only to legitimate interests and uses, protect it from unauthorized
	use and review whether or not the Whois protocol and service itself may
	be better replaced by a more appropriate alternative.
	
	[] 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.
	
	PS - are we gonna vote on any of this anytime soon? I'm getting ballot
	withdrawal. :)
	
	-rwr