Re: [gnso-dow123] Regarding Letter from American Intellectual Property Law As...

[KathrynKL@xxxxxxx]

private
 
Bruce:
Your response to the AIPLA sounds right on target.  I wish that the  rumors 
of what we are doing were not so distorted and out of line.  It  takes away 
from the discussion and debate.
 
Privately, I wanted to share that I think the debate in GAC may be a more  
balanced.  As you know, I feared another one-sided debate, and a closet  veto 
of 
the Council's Purpose of Whois.  I contacted data protection  commissioners 
who have worked with ICANN in the past (from Rome, Vancouver,  etc).  I think 
letters and representatives are coming.  I don't have  the details, but I 
wanted to give you a heads-up. 
 
I would love to be a fly on the wall in a closed-GAC meeting and see the US  
FTC debate an EU Data Protection Commissioner.  I hope it comes to  pass!
 
Kathy


I  have read the letter from the American Intellectual Property  Law
Association.  I don't understand how the letter relates to  the
formulations 1 or 2.  It seems that members of the community have  made
pre-mature judgements on the eventual outcomes of the WHOIS  work.   The
letter raises issues about the importance of the  data, and the need for
access to that data by law enforcement and other  legitimate parties.
This seems entirely consistent with the current terms  of reference of
the WHOIS task force.  I have sent the following reply  to clarify that
there are no changes in collected data, nor in the  requirement for that
data to be accurate.  The more important work has  yet to be done, which
is developing better access  controls.