RE: [bc-gnso] RE: For BC review & comment: draft response to Whois Review Team

["Elisa Cooper" <Elisa.Cooper@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Please find attached a revised draft which reflects support for a broad
definition of "Consumer" and added emphasis as to why timely,
unrestricted and public access of Whois is important to business.

 

Best,

Elisa

 

Elisa Cooper

Director of Product Marketing

MarkMonitor

 

208 389- 5779 PH

 

________________________________

From: Ron Andruff [mailto:randruff@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] 
Sent: Monday, April 11, 2011 10:02 AM
To: 'Marilyn Cade'; 'Lynn Goodendorf'; 'Steve Delbianco'
Cc: 'Janet Callaghan'; 'Berry Cobb'; sarah.b.deutsch@xxxxxxxxxxx; Elisa
Cooper; 'bc - GNSO list'
Subject: RE: [bc-gnso] RE: For BC review & comment: draft response to
Whois Review Team

 

I'll add RNA Partners voice of support to Lynn's recommendation for a
broader definition.

 

Kind regards,

 

RA

 

Ronald N. Andruff

RNA Partners, Inc.

 

________________________________

From: owner-bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf
Of Marilyn Cade
Sent: Monday, April 11, 2011 2:16 AM
To: Lynn Goodendorf; Steve Delbianco
Cc: Janet Callaghan; Berry Cobb; sarah.b.deutsch@xxxxxxxxxxx; Elisa
Cooper; bc - GNSO list
Subject: RE: [bc-gnso] RE: For BC review & comment: draft response to
Whois Review Team

 


My suggestion is that the BC position should strongly support the
broader definition. All Web and Internet statistics use the concept of
individuals who use the Internet -- e.g. who have access to the
Internet.  And, I agree with Lynn [and others] that the AoC intended to
refer to that broader characterization.  

 

Does the draft need to make all that clearer in its language? 

________________________________

From: lynn@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
To: sdelbianco@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
CC: jocallaghan@xxxxxxxxxxxx; berrycobb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx;
sarah.b.deutsch@xxxxxxxxxxx; Elisa.Cooper@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx;
bc-GNSO@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: [bc-gnso] RE: For BC review & comment: draft response to Whois
Review Team
Date: Thu, 7 Apr 2011 17:59:10 -0700

Thanks Steve for this draft and the work of the BC to provide productive
comments.

 

As an member of the Whois Review Team, I would personally appreciate
support from the BC for the broader definition of "consumer" as a global
Internet user rather than the narrow definition that would limit the
concept of consumers to registrants and ICANN stakeholders. 

 

I maintain that the broader definition is consistent with language in
other sections of the AOC that refer to "public interest" and "Internet
users" as well as the policy requirement for public availability of
Whois data.

 

Also, I believe members of the BC have first hand experience with the
UDRP process and a good understanding of the dependency on Whois data
for dispute resolution.  The BC perspective on this specific need for
accurate and reliable Whois data would be helpful in progressing our
work.

Lynn

 

 

        -------- Original Message --------
        Subject: For BC review & comment: draft response to Whois Review
Team
        From: Steve DelBianco <sdelbianco@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
        Date: Thu, April 07, 2011 2:46 pm
        To: "bc-GNSO@xxxxxxxxx" <bc-GNSO@xxxxxxxxx>
        Cc: Janet O'Callaghan <jocallaghan@xxxxxxxxxxxx>, Lynn
Goodendorf
        <lynn@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Berry Cobb
        <berrycobb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Sarah Deutsch
        <sarah.b.deutsch@xxxxxxxxxxx> <http://verizon.com%3e> ;, Elisa
Cooper
        <Elisa.Cooper@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <http://markmonitor.com%3e> ;

        ICANN is gathering responses to questions posed by the Whois
review team. 

         

        Attached is a discussion draft for BC response prepared by Elisa
Cooper.  (Steve DelBianco added a bit about Whois studies)   

         

        On our last member call, several others also volunteered to add
to this response, so we're looking forward to your additions:

                Sara Deutsch

                Berry Cobb

                Lynn Goodendorf

                Janet O'Callaghan

                 

        ICANN's Comment period closes 17-Apr.    Today (7-Apr) begins an
8-day review period for this discussion draft. We can submit this
response later if members feel they need the entire 14-day review and
discussion period. 

         

        Please review and post your suggestions/edits as soon as
possible.   If there are no disagreements noted by 17-Apr, this response
will be adopted without a voting period, and posted to ICANN.

         

        For topic background, see 
http://icann.org/en/public-comment/#whois-rt 

         

        Thanks again to Elisa Cooper for serving as BC Rapporteur on
this.  

         

                 

         

        Regards,

        Steve DelBianco

        Vice chair for policy coordination

Attachment: BC_on_WRT1_ver2.docx
Description: