RE: [gnso-dow123] Note from Paul Twomey regarding WHOIS clause in the Affirmation of Responsibilities Resolution passed by the Board last week.
<div>> what ICANN's existing policy on Whois billing contact data is</div> <div> </div> <div>Seems to me that the current policy is that it's not required for Whois. There is nothing in our RRA about a Billing Contact for Whois and there are no concensus policies that change that.</div> <div> </div> <div>Section 3.4.1 of our RRA does require the name of the Billing Contact for data retention purposes only.</div> <div><BR><BR>Tim <BR></div> <DIV id=wmMessageComp name="wmMessageComp"><BR><BR> <BLOCKQUOTE style="PADDING-LEFT: 8px; MARGIN-LEFT: 8px; BORDER-LEFT: blue 2px solid">-------- Original Message --------<BR>Subject: Re: [gnso-dow123] Note from Paul Twomey regarding WHOIS clause<BR>in the Affirmation of Responsibilities Resolution passed by the Board<BR>last week.<BR>From: Ross Rader <ross@xxxxxxxxxx><BR>Date: Wed, October 04, 2006 4:06 am<BR>To: Bruce Tonkin <Bruce.Tonkin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx><BR>Cc: gnso-dow123@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx<BR><BR>a) I'm a bit surprised that paul didn't bother to send us a note directly.<BR><BR>b) then why is this text in here in the first place. Isn't ICANN always <BR>bound to enforce its policies?<BR><BR>Something still doesn't add up about all of this. In the meantime, I'm <BR>dying to find out what ICANN's existing policy on Whois billing contact <BR>data is. Perhaps Paul could answer this for us as well.<BR><BR>Bruce Tonkin wrote:<BR>> <BR>> <BR>> Mr Bruce Tonkin<BR>> Chair<BR>> Generic Names Supportin! g Organisation<BR>> <BR>> Dear Bruce<BR>> <BR>> It would appear that speculation continues among some members of the<BR>> community as to the meaning of the WHOIS clause in the Affirmation of<BR>> Responsibilities Resolution passed by the Board last week.<BR>> <BR>> I thought it would be useful for me to write to you to make clear my<BR>> understanding, and my understanding of the Board, on this.<BR>> <BR>> There is nothing in the WHOIS clause in the Resolution which prohibits<BR>> any proper and complete development of new policy in accordance with<BR>> ICANN's bylaws. The text in the Affirmation of Responsibilities is a<BR>> statement of policy as it presently stands - not a statement of what is<BR>> immutable or what we can't do.<BR>> <BR>> This clause in the Affirmation of Responsibilities Resolution is not,<BR>> and cannot be, counter to the ICANN bylaws, including those which<BR>> outline ICANN's policy de! velopment procedures.<BR>> <BR>> But if, and until, there is any change to the WHOIS policy according to<BR>> these procedures, ICANN will continue to enforce the existing WHOIS<BR>> policy like we would do any other policy. Indeed resources are<BR>> earmarked in this year's operational plan for such compliance work.<BR>> <BR>> On the topic of the ongoing work on WHOIS, I would note that as part of<BR>> a broader WHOIS PDP process other Supporting Organisations and Advisory<BR>> Committees will have the opportunity to comment on any policy work if<BR>> and when it is passed on by the Council. But this is like any other<BR>> policy considered by the Board.<BR>> <BR>> I understand that the general thrust of what I have written above has<BR>> already been communicated to the Council by Denise Michel.<BR>> <BR>> I hope this will give some clarity to members of the Council and the<BR>> GNSO constituencies.<BR>> <BR>> I would appreciate it if you were to share this communication wi! th the<BR>> Council members, the public WHOIS list, and constituencies you consider<BR>> relevant.<BR>> <BR>> Kind regards,<BR>> <BR>> Paul<BR>> <BR>> _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _<BR>> <BR>> Dr Paul Twomey<BR>> President and CEO<BR>> ICANN<BR>> <BR>> <mailto:paul.twomey@xxxxxxxxx> <BR>> <BR>> <BR>> <BR>> <BR>> </BLOCKQUOTE></DIV>