draft gac whois principles text...

[Carlos Afonso]

Danny, actually this position was already known in the last GAC meeting, 
and so made public -- no news here, they are just reaffirming it in 
their draft, so we pretty much should expect this to be one of the main 
positions to be voted by the GAC. I would handle it as far as our 
advocacy goes as a publicly known proposal.

--c.a.

Danny Younger wrote:
> 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 
> 
> 

-- 

Carlos A. Afonso
diretor de planejamento
Rits - Rede de Informações para o Terceiro Setor
***************************************************************
Projeto Sacix - Apoio técnico a iniciativas de inclusão digital
com software livre, mantido pela Rits em colaboração com o
Coletivo Digital. Para mais informações:
www.sacix.org.br   www.rits.org.br   www.coletivodigital.org.br
***************************************************************