TF3 update and note on outreach

Sat Jun 5 10:00:29 CEST 2004

Dear Frannie Wellings and all others,

I have just read the preliminary report of TF3.
As you had implied, it is purely IPC's declaration rather than a report
for public comment. My feeling is that ICANN seems to be a place where all
people should be tested on how long all interest groups keep their
position without any compromise and looking for an appropriate time
to make big voice in taking chair or making draft document.

As Thomas Roessler mentioned and Ross Rader reiterated, the best practice
part has never reflected all prior inputs and outcomes come out throughout
long discussion on this sensitive issue. Moreover, that part seems to be
very offensive and too regulatory. I was shocked that the versification
process of a domain name accuracy could be similar to being investigated
due to some possible serious crime.

Registrar's alternate text is very well worked out, although it still
holds to impose some sanction on those registrants who intentionally deny
to provide correct contact point information. I think we could advance
further if we could successfully make out the corrected or commented
version on Registrar's alternate text.

Then, when I tried to make some comments, I could not find out where it
could be done, and no comments at the designated URL. Has not yet opened
the public comment period?

Still, I have not yet read TF 1,2 preliminary reports. And its volume size
is too thick. Anyhow, I believe Kathy and Milton could have done an
excellent job.

regards,

Chun

On Tue, 1 Jun 2004, Frannie Wellings wrote:

> Harold, Kathy and all NCUC folks -
> I'm glad we're talking about outreach.  We (EPIC) are going to try
> and recruit public comment to these Task Forces through the GILC list
> (Global Internet Liberties Campaign), EDRi (European Digital Rights
> Initiative), TACD, the Privacy Coalition, and other lists/groups.
> We'll really need help getting comments submitted, especially in Task
> Force 3 (summary of TF 3 progress below).  Kathy, I would like to do
> a conference call.  Harold, if you or anyone else on the list has
> ideas for other groups to contact about this please let us know.
> Regarding TF3, I'm going to send to these lists the Preliminary
> Report and an alternative to the Best Practices section which was
> submitted by the Registrars constituency.  That alternative is still
> not as privacy friendly as we would like, but is much better than the
> one included in the Report.  I'm hoping we'll get a lot of comments
> submitted on that version, giving it some legitimacy and pulling the
> document as a whole to the left - or whatever radical side it may be
> :).  Our document isn't as long as TF2's, but I know they can be
> tedious, so we can draft some sample comments for people if that
> helps.    It is tough to get people interested in these detailed
> policy issues and tough to make it all understandable, though I think
> you're right Harold that this is an area people could be attracted to.
> Anyway, hope everyone's well.  - Frannie
>
>
> To update you on Task Force 3:
> Bottom line, our document stinks.  The report itself shows that we
> got no results to our surveys, and therefore no data to make any
> policy recommendations.  This was a good thing! However, at the last
> minute the IP constituency drafted a Best Practices section - we'd
> argued against it saying no data collection meant we were unable to
> recommend Best Practices. We voted on Thursday/Friday on this
> trickier part of the document, just the Best Practices section.  A
> rep from the IP constituency is chairing our task force and he really
> refused to take reasonable input to amend this document significantly
> before the vote.
> So, I'd been working with Ross Rader from the Registrars constituency
> to get an alternate document submitted for public comment.  We needed
> to vote down the IP document. We had the votes of the At-Large as
> well and just needed the Registries.  We thought we had the
> Registries vote - we were calling everyone we knew to try and sway
> that vote, but in the end they abstained from certain parts of the
> document, but voted yes on some points, unfortunately passing that
> draft as a whole for public comment.
> Now we're in a situation were we have to reframe this discussion and
> are going to rely heavily on public comment.  On our last TF call, I
> said that given this task force's reluctance to accept constituency
> reps input, I didn't see what would change in terms of adjusting the
> document as a response to the public comment.  What's resulted is
> that I'm in charge of reviewing, etc. all public comments and
> summarizing for our task force.  So... I really need many NCUC
> submissions.
> I'll send out to the lists above the text of the current best
> practices and the alternative document from the Registrars.
> Let me know what you think, but I think I'll see if we can get
> comments shooting down the current Best Practices section entirely
> and commenting on how we would like to change the registrars
> document.  If we work from that one, at least we have a couple of
> constituencies to support it, and possibly the Registries.
>
> >>Whois Task Force 3 Preliminary report can be viewed here
> >>(alternative Best Practices section is near the end.
> >>http://gnso.icann.org/issues/whois-privacy/TF3PreliminaryWithRCMR1.pdf
> >>
> >>Comments for the Whois Task Force 3 Preliminary Report can be submitted to:
> >>whois-tf3-report-comments at gnso.icann.org.
> >>The archive of comments for this report is available at:
> http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/whois-tf3-report-comments.
>
>
> At 03:06 PM -0400 06.01.2004, Harold Feld wrote:
> >Kathy, my thanks for your tireless and excellent work on this issue.
> >
> >To the rest of us:
> >To what extent, if any, are the organizations in the NCUC reaching out
> >on this issue to other organizations?  This is an issue of enormous
> >public importance.  Organizations and individuals that generally do not
> >care about "DNS policy" or "Internet governance" may care about this.
> >In the United States in particular, this may have great value for
> >educating U.S. policymakers and Federal agencies that are pushing for
> >"thick" registries without consideration of the social cost.
> >
> >I hope we will all seek to spread word to our colleagues about both the
> >ICANN process and uses of the report for broader public interest activties.
> >
> >Harold Feld
> >
> >KathrynKL at AOL.COM wrote:
> >
> >>The WHOIS Task Force 2 report is now published by the GNSO Council for
> >>comment (until June 17th).  It is posted at
> >>http://gnso.icann.org/issues/whois-privacy/TF2%20Initial%20Report3.pdf.
> >>
> >>Would anyone like to have a conference call to talk about the report
> >>and great value of filing some short comments?
> >>
> >>Also:  comments on TF2 report go to
> >>"whois-tf2-report-comments at gnso.icann.org."
> >>The archive of comments for this report is available at:
> >>http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/whois-tf2-report-comments.
> >>
> >>Kathy
> >>\
>
>
> --
>
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
> Frannie Wellings
> Policy Analyst, Electronic Privacy Information Center
> Coordinator, The Public Voice
> 1718 Connecticut Ave. N.W., Suite 200
> Washington, D.C.  20009   USA
> wellings at epic.org
> +1 202 483 1140 extension 107 (telephone)
> +1 202 483 1248 (fax)
> http://www.epic.org
> http://www.thepublicvoice.org
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
>

--
------------------------------------------------------------
Chun Eung Hwi
General Secretary, PeaceNet | phone:     (+82)  2-2166-2205
Seoul Yangchun P.O.Box 81   |   pcs:     (+82) 019-259-2667
Seoul, 158-600, Korea       | eMail:   chun at peacenet.or.kr
------------------------------------------------------------