Re: [gnso-dow123] Attached! Preliminary tf Report Purpose Whois and Whois con...

[KathrynKL@xxxxxxx]

I have to oppose Steveâs complete elimination of any mention of the 
organizational effort involved in bringing out public comment.  This 
characterization 
has been made in the past to about noncommercial community comments (in earlier 
Whois comment periods), and thus is appropriate for the commercial community 
as well.  

Further, I think Olof was more than responsive to this issue.  He removed 
extensive commentary that I found both accurate and fair.  He reduced a 178 
word 
description to a 17 word description [see new and old versions at the bottom 
of this msg].  I strongly oppose any further elimination or restriction or 
editing of this wording. 

I also have to oppose Steveâs expansion of INTAâs comments.  I think the 
summary of all the comments is necessarily short.  There are many comments in 
favor of Formulation 1 that I would like to expand, but I held back from 
offering 
them.  Those who want to read more can go to the website and read the full 
versions.  Further, in response to the existing INTA summary, I offer a change. 
 


After the report line stating INTAâs view, âIt said that because Whois asks 
for consent, it is compliant with data protection laws such as those of Canada 
or the EU,â  the report should add brackets with the line: â[But this 
interpretation of Canadian privacy law was expressly rejected by Stephanie 
Perrin, 
Director of Policy & Research, Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada, 
keynote speaker, after a question from INTA at the conference Building Bridges 
on ICANNâs Whois Questions, November 29, 2005, Vancouver, Canada.â]

Adding Red Cross comments to the report seems OK since I did not find them on 
the website. 

Regards, Kathy
******************************* comparison original and revised 5.1 
*********************
OLOFâs REVISED SECTION 5:
A number of the comments supporting Formulation 2 featured similar 
argumentation and structure, suggesting a concerted effort. Â 

ORIGINAL SECTION 5:
However, a number of the comments from intellectual property rights holders' 
organisations received appeared to follow a similar structure and to adopt 
similar argumentation, suggesting a concerted effort to rally responses during 
the public comments period. For example, the comment received from an 
individual (Raquel Alcantara, identifying the organisation only as 'copyright 
industry') appeared to explicitly follow a suggested template of response, 
rather than 
considering and responding to the preliminary task force report itself. 
(http://forum.icann.org/lists/whois-comments/msg00011.html) Â
As ICANN seeks to improve the representation of different interests and 
groups in its policy processes, input from diverse and previously silent groups 
is 
welcome. The fact alone of a concerted effort to provide input should not 
itself undermine the credibility or usefulness of the responses received. 
However, for the purposes of fairly analysing the public comments received, it 
is 
not clear in this case that the quantity of comments received reflects the 
diversity of opinion. If, for example, privacy rights organisations had 
orchestrated responses from sister organisations around the world, these 
responses should 
be considered on their merits by task force members.Â