draft gac whois principles text...

[Danny Younger]

Robin,

With all due respect, you are responding to a document
that hasn't been formally released for publication by
the GAC.

If your organization wishes to express its views on
the basis of an unratified working group initiative,
you are indeed at liberty to write to whomever you
choose in the pursuit of democratic participation, but
I would tend to regard such a reaction as premature
and as one that takes a focus away from more
productive pursuits.

I would rather see the organizational members of this
constituency focus on developing a model of WHOIS that
we can endorse and that can ultimately be accepted by
members of the ICANN Board.

While the GAC has a Working Group on WHOIS policy,
where is the NCUC working group?  One of our WHOIS
Task Force representatives has retired without being
replaced, while our other representatives seem to be
"missing in action" as reflected by their
non-participation on several recent WHOIS TF
teleconferences.

As a constituency we have work to do -- that's why
we're here.  A new WHOIS will not be achieved if we
don't act as a group to indicate precisely which data
fields we are prepared to accept for public display.

I had earlier posted some questions regarding views on
the tiered access WHOIS as utilized by the .name
registry, and on other matters.  Unless we begin to
fully discuss these issues and clearly articulate our
vision of how a future WHOIS will look and operate, we
will likely continue to be stuck with the status quo.

Best wishes,
Danny


--- Robin Gross <robin at IPJUSTICE.ORG> wrote:

> I don't consider citizens expressing their views to
> their governmental
> representatives on policy matters as "meddling".
>
> I tend to think of it as democratic participation.
>
> Robin
>
>
>
> Danny Younger wrote:
>
> >Milton,
> >
> >I think that you are overreacting.  This is not a
> case
> >of two govts working in private and then declaring
> >what is "public policy".
> >
> >Suzanne Sene functions as the convenor of the GAC
> >working group on WHOIS.  That working group
> (probably
> >more than two members) agreed on text drafted by
> the
> >Australian GAC contingent.  The draft -- let me
> repeat
> >-- draft -- has now been forwarded to the entirety
> of
> >the GAC membership for a preliminary round of
> >comments.
> >
> >I see nothing sinister in the process.  It may well
> be
> >that other GAC members will disagree with the
> language
> >presented and will seek modifications,
> enhancements,
> >revisions, or amendments.  What ultimately emerges
> may
> >bear little similarity to this initial text.
> >
> >What troubles me is the rush to meddle in the
> internal
> >affairs of another advisory group and the call for
> a
> >reactionary letter-writing campaign.
> >
> >Would you want the GAC or any other constituent
> body
> >engaging in a letter writing campaign to the NCUC?
> >Would you like it if external interests attempted
> to
> >apply pressure on select NCUC members in order to
> >achieve a certain result?
> >
> >Let the GAC do whatever it needs to do.  That's
> their
> >business, not ours.  Our business is to formulate a
> >WHOIS proposal that serves the noncommercial
> interest,
> >yet thus far I have not seen any attempt to craft
> such
> >a model.
> >
> >It's easy enough to complain that what others have
> >proposed runs counter to our interests... but at
> the
> >end of the day such whining fails to serve our
> needs
> >if a counter-proposal is not on the table.
> >
> >If this constituency is serious about the future of
> >WHOIS policy, then we have a duty to present an
> >alternative model and to make the case for such a
> >model.
> >
> >I look forward to discussion within the
> constituency
> >on what a future WHOIS should look like.
> >
> >best wishes,
> >Danny
> >
> >--- Milton Mueller <mueller at SYR.EDU> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >>Remember the issue is not just Whois, as importqnt
> >>as that is. It is
> >>also the farcical US puppet institution that
> >>degrades the UN and then
> >>attempts to let two govts working in private
> declare
> >>what is "public
> >>policy" for the entire world.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> >__________________________________________________
> >Do You Yahoo!?
> >Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam
> protection around
> >http://mail.yahoo.com
> >
> >
>


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com