RE: [gnso-whois-wg] clarification of GAC relevance to GNSO WGs

["Maria Farrell" <maria.farrell@xxxxxxxxx>]

Well, the GAC principles were part of the background document that was
required reading for this Working Group..!

While there is no formal relationship directly between the GNSO and the GAC,
the GNSO has discussed Whois and appraised the GAC of Whois developments
over the last two years. The logic is that it is useful to consider as input
the considered position of the entire GAC on an issue that has a direct
bearing on public policy issue. 

Here is a link to the GAC principles to help WG members consider them again;
http://gac.icann.org/web/home/WHOIS_principles.pdf

All the best, Maria

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-gnso-whois-wg@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-whois-wg@xxxxxxxxx]
On Behalf Of Dan Krimm
Sent: Wednesday, July 25, 2007 5:02 PM
To: gnso-whois-wg@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: [gnso-whois-wg] clarification of GAC relevance to GNSO WGs

In today's call we had a comment from the GAC referring to a listing or
enumeration of public interests, or something to that effect, when
discussing Section 1 of our report (Objective).  I am not familiar with that
GAC output at this time.

While GC opinions may theoretically be of interest here, I would assume that
since GNSO does not report formally to GAC, in this WG we are certainly not
bound formally by any such suggestions or GAC precedents.

So to reiterate my comments on the call, it seems to me that we open a
spurious can of worms and potentially substantial disagreement by making any
attempt to *categorize* the "interests" involved, and that such
categorization is simply unnecessary in order to achieve the goals of the
WG.

This is why I made a suggestion that avoided that terminology altogether by
being specific about exactly what we are talking about, namely protecting
privacy and combatting harmful uses of domains.

Dan