draft gac whois principles text...

[Milton Mueller]

Danny,

Dr. Milton Mueller
Syracuse University School of Information Studies
http://www.digital-convergence.org
http://www.internetgovernance.org

>>> Danny Younger <dannyyounger at YAHOO.COM> 09/23/06 3:48 PM >>>
>This is not a case of two govts working in private and
>then declaring what is "public policy".

As a matter of fact, it is. There are no other members of this so-called
"working group." Name one. Where is the composition of this WG posted?
This "working group" has been selected by Sene to include only
governments who agree with the US position.

What happened here is very simple. The Australian delegate drafted this
position. Full stop. The position does not reflect the views of any
government besides those of the US and Australia, despite the fact that
opposing views have been expressed by at least two other governments,
the Article 29 working group, etc.

>Suzanne Sene functions as the convenor of the GAC
>working group on WHOIS.

Sene created this WG herself and hand-picked the people on it.

> That working group (probably more than two members)
>agreed on text drafted by the Australian GAC contingent.

I believe you are mistaken. Provide one fact to support this assertion.
Why are you rationalizing the GAC when we both know it is completely
manipulated as regards this issue?

>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,

>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.

Danny, wake up! The USG and the IPR lobbyists have been engaged in a
full-scale reactionary lobbying campaign ever since the GNSO redefined
WHOIS purpose. What I am proposing is simply that citizens whose
governments are supposed to represent them try to get their govts to
react. It is a well known fact that most GAC representatives have no
idea what is going on and sit in the meetings and read their email, or
are unwilling or afraid to publicly clash with the US.

GAC members -- national governments -- often claim to represent the
public interest. Well, let them hear from the public then.

>Would you want the GAC or any other constituent body
>engaging in a letter writing campaign to the NCUC?

Where have you BEEN, Danny? Do you know how much pressure Bruce Tonkin
has been under and how many secret meetings between USG, registrars, and
registries have been held to discuss whois?

>Would you like it if external interests attempted to
>apply pressure on select NCUC members in order to
>achieve a certain result?

Your grasp of the politics of this situation is deeply strange. I don't
know what else to say.

>Let the GAC do whatever it needs to do.

What is the GAC? Do you mean the US Dept of Commerce and one or two
other allies?

>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.

Huh? Pay closer attention, you're still new here.