[Fwd: [council] Reasons for my vote on Whois]

[Robin Gross]

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: 	[council] Reasons for my vote on Whois
Date: 	Sun, 4 Nov 2007 23:57:34 -0500
From: 	Avri Doria <avri at psg.com>
To: 	Council GNSO <council at gnso.icann.org>
CC: 	Liz Gasster <lgasster at gmail.com>


Statement explaining nomcom appointee Avri Doria's vote on the Whois
PDP.

I voted for motions 1 and 3 and against 2.

A lot of give and take had gone into the OPoC proposal and I felt
that it deserved a chance for implementation.  And though there were
a few large issues that needed to be worked out, for example the
reveal function and the authorisation model for levels of access, I
felt that a solution was still possible with more work.

My vote for motion 1 also reflects my belief that the process of
implementation, including a genuine iterative process between the
staff and council, allows individual issues to be explored at a more
practical level and within an implementation context.  Sometimes
issues that seem intractable as abstract principles become solvable
at the practical level.  As I have mentioned on several occasions in
the council, I do not believe there is a strict line that separates
the policy issues from the implementation issues and believe that
often the implementation makes implicit policy.  This is one of the
bases for my belief that working on detailed questions that emerged
from an implementation effort would have assisted the council in
coming to further consensus on its policy differences.

I have mixed feelings regarding Motion 2.  I certainly support the
goal of ending this PDP, especially if we are not trying to complete
work on OPoC.  As for further studies, I can see a role for
professionally done  studies and surveys, which are scientifically
well formed, methodologically sound and statistically valid. Part of
the basis for these sorts of studies requires a good understanding of
the requirements, which involves knowing what questions the study is
intended to answer.   One concern is that without the strictest rigor
in defining studies, they often end up as one sided and merely serve
to confirm the opinions of the surveyor or of the surveyor's client.
I think we all have the experience of seeing competing studies on
each side of an issue.

I am apprehensive about our ability to deliver on high quality
rigorous preparations  in the schedule demanded by the motion,
especially with our current work load and when we are about to go
through the holiday season followed by the initial work on
restructuring.  One of the reasons given, off line,  by some for the
rush in initiating the studies was to support the calls being made by
the GAC.  While I have no difficulty in supporting the GAC on this
issue, I do not feel that we need to rush and do not believe they are
asking us to rush.  Rather, I  feel we need to let the dust settle
before reengaging in this particular tussle. Now that we have
approved this motion, however, I am committed to completing its
requirements as well as possible in the time allotted.

On motion 3, I believe that Whois is unsuited to the service to which
ICANN is putting it and it is no longer needed for its original
purpose as was discussed in a paper included in the appendices of the
Task Force report.  Given that there is no consensus on the service
it is being required to provide and that it is not fit for this
purpose, I believe it should be retired from service.

I also strongly believe that Whois causes more harm to the general
public  then it prevents.  And while I understand that investigative
agencies, both public and private, find it a useful public database
in their hunt for a few miscreants, I do not not believe that this
warrants harm against the majority of registrants who would never
intentionally misuse their domain name.   I think the harm this tool
causes to global civil liberties is far too serious for ICANN to
continue to require its use.