[gnso-dow123] Email from the Registry Constituency

[Danny Younger]

Milton,

I'd like to address your comment that "ICANN will
never work if people can reopen issues after the
process dealing with them is closed".

It seems to me that the problem is the closure of the
process prior to outstanding problems being resolved.
The last WHOIS public comment period saw a large
number of commentators addressing the myriad flaws
present in both the OPOC and the Special Circumstances
proposals... yet the TF did absolutely nothing to
improve the proposals based upon the public feedback.


The OPOC proposal still has holes in it so large that
you could drive a truck through them.

As the registry constituency has asked:  "what happens
when the non-published Whois data is requested of the
OPoC?  This question must be answered in sufficient
detail to provide policy direction regarding what,
when, how and to whom non-published Whois data must be
released by the OPoC."

We would be better off by acknowledging that the job
remains unfinished and tasking a new set of
participants to finalize this work.  Having the TF
wrap up their affairs by voting on which incomplete
proposal is best is surely a foolhardy exercise.





--- Milton Mueller <mueller at SYR.EDU> wrote:

> Maria and Jordyn:
>
> As you made clear to us at the close of the call,
> the Task Force is
> over. It's up to Maria to finish the report with the
> minor modifications
> we discussed. And the only issues she and you can
> take into
> consideration are the positions and statements made
> during and before
> the call where we deliberated on the final report.
> This is a procedural
> requirement. .
>
> Thus I have a procedural objection to Simon's
> proposal. If the registry
> constitency wants to completely change its position
> (obviously in
> response to extramural political pressure and God
> only knows what kind
> of deal or bribe) the sad fact is that it's simply
> too late for that
> change to be reflected in this report.
>
> The Report is finished -- or at least it would be,
> in any well-run
> organization and any community where people have
> some standards of
> integrity. That of course doesn't prevent the RyC
> from pursuing its deal
> with the devil in other forums. But at least let's
> maintain the
> integrity of the TF process.
>
> Simon: Let me put before you some of the statements
> of your own
> constituency. How are we supposed to reconcile this
> statement from your
> official constituency postion::
>
> "As stated above, RyC generally supports the
> underlying concepts of the
> OPoC proposal."
>
> with the statement in his current email:
>
> "I thus must ask that the Registry Constituency be
> removed from the
> list of
> those who are 'broadly' in support of Opoc..."
>
> The two statements are in direct contradiction. And
> yet the first
> statement was a product of a careful and lengthy
> process and stood in
> place for many months, while the second is a
> furtive, incoherent and
> desperately last minute intervention of unkown
> motives and questionable
> authenticity.
>
> More to the point, why did the registry constituency
> allow this report,
> which has listed RyC as a supporter of OPoC, to
> stand unchanged and
> unchallenged for nearly three months? Why did it not
> raise the concerns
> on the last call, or during the months and months of
> endless
> teleconferences that preceded it? How legitimate is
> it, how seriously
> can this manuever be taken? I would suggest, not at
> all.
>
> The RyC statement -- the real one, not this pathetic
> manuever of an
> email -- has this to say about delaying tactics:
>
> "Although this task force was convened in February
> 2005, it is the
> outgrowth of proceedings that began in 2001, nearly
> six years ago. It is
> a sad commentary on the processes of the GNSO and
> its task forces that
> it has taken over six years to arrive at what are
> essentially two simple
> conclusions..."
>
> "The lofty goal of policy making by consensus has
> been subverted by
> constituencies that have a vested interested in
> preservation of the
> status quo in the WHOIS. The proceedings of this
> task force and its
> predecessors have dragged on over the years mainly
> because of procedural
> maneuvering with little or no connection to the
> substantive issues."
>
> Simon, I suggest that you read that part of your
> statement again, and
> ask yourself: is this effort of yours not
> perpetuating that problem? Is
> it not deliberately intended to destroy the products
> of this task
> force's work? And if so, hasn't someone in your own
> constituency already
> blown the whistle on you?
>
> >>> "Simon Sheard" <simon at SHEARD.NAME> 3/2/2007
> 3:01:40 AM >>>
>
> Jordyn, Maria, all,
>
> Following continued discussions within the Registry
> Constituency I
> must
> request an amendment be made to the Executive
> Summary report.
>
> In our written statement (which is section 13.4 in
> my copy but part of
> section 11? Presumably a bug?) we did express
> support for the Opoc
> proposal
> but felt that it did not go nearly far enough when
> it came to
> addressing the
> question of access to data by parties having
> legitimate needs for such
> access. We also highlighted the necessity of
> Sponsored Registries to be
> able
> to determine the eligibility of registration
> applicants themselves
> something
> which is not adequately covered by the Opoc proposal
> either.
>
> It is thus the majority view of the Registry
> Constituency that to
> include us
> in the Executive Summary in a list of Constituencies
> who 'broadly'
> support
> Opoc is misleading.
>
> in the "Summary of the Task
> Force Policy Recommendation to the GNSO Council"
> section in the
> Executive
> Summary.
>
> For the avoidance of doubt can I also ask, if a
> paragraph is included
> along
> the lines that Milton has proposed, that the three
> Constituencies in
> support
> of the Special Circumstances Proposal are actually
> named.
>
> Finally, we would like to request that a new
> paragraph be added, after
> Milton's paragraph, as follows:
>
> "While the Registry Constituency prefers the Opoc
> solution to the
> Special
> Circumstances proposal it is unable to give it's
> support at this time
> since
> it does not adequately address the question of
> access to data by
> parties,
> such as law enforcement, who have legitimate needs
> for such access, nor
> does
> it adequately deal with the issue that Sponsored
> Registries must be
> able to
> determine certain eligibility requirements
> themselves."
>
> Please accept my apologies for the delay in
> communicating this to the
> Taskforce but I have had difficulties in contacting
> members of the
> Registry
> Constituency in the last few days.
>
> Sincerely
>
> Simon Sheard
> On Behalf of the Registry Constituency
>




____________________________________________________________________________________
Be a PS3 game guru.
Get your game face on with the latest PS3 news and previews at Yahoo! Games.
http://videogames.yahoo.com/platform?platform=120121