draft gac whois principles text...

[Milton Mueller]

>>> Danny Younger <dannyyounger at YAHOO.COM> 09/23/06 6:36 PM >>>
>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.

Kathy Kleiman and I have discussed these issues at length, both within
the GNSO TF and with NCUC members in our debriefings at various
meetings. Sorry you weren't there but you can't assume that the ncuc
world began when you got on the mailing list.

We view tiered access as a "devil in the details" kind of a reform. The
.name proposal is not acceptable, it simply requires people to log in
and gives them "all they can eat" once they do, which is incompatible
with data protection principles (wherein you should have a defined
purpose for seeking information about a particular person.

We much prefer to OPoC. Then the issue becomes what details are released
under that proposal.

But you're right, we need to discuss more and we need to replace Kathy.
Do you think we can maniufacture volunteers of that caliber at will?

Just last week I asked you to follow up on a policy controversy you
started: regarding the "restocking fee" proposed by PIR. You'll have a
lot more credibility with me and probably the rest of us if you deliver
some goods before scolding the rest of us about how little we do.

OK?