draft gac whois principles text...

[Chun Eung Hwi]

Dear all,

Thank you for your information and some insightful talks!
I have already proposed to discuss what comments our government will make
on this US-Australian proposal in our internet addressing policy advisory
committee - it is a governmental committee where some civilian members are
invited including me. So,coming Friday, we will discuss it.

I have also some questions how procedure have been taken in GAC. In last
GAC communique, they wrote "The GAC believes therefore that the final
definition of the purpose of WHOIS data needs to reflect the public policy
concerns expressed by GAC members. The GAC is intending to produce policy
advice on the purpose and use of WHOIS in the form of principles for the
Sao Paulo meeting." However, I don't know whether the work of drafting gac
whois principle document was mandated to some government. I will try to
find what happened in GAC and if there is any procedural problem for this
drafting process.

In Friday meeting, I will explain what GNSO whois purpose definition
really means and if possible - although I am not so optimistic - I will
persuade our government to take more supportive position to GNSO
definition. Of course,bottom line is to make her not to support the
present gac draft document. I also hope other NCUC members to act in this
way. One problem is that we have very limited number of active members.
Then, can we share this information with other civil society members? I
think in European countries, EDRI could do something. And some other apc
members would do so in their own countries. Can we move it more
effectively?


regards,

Chun


On Sun, 24 Sep 2006, Milton Mueller wrote:

> 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.
>

--
------------------------------------------------------------
Chun Eung Hwi
General Secretary, PeaceNet |   fax:     (+82)  2-2649-2624
Seoul Yangchun P.O.Box 81   |   pcs:     (+82)  19-259-2667
Seoul, 158-600, Korea  	    | eMail:   chun at peacenet.or.kr
------------------------------------------------------------