Urgent: your response needed

[Danny Younger]

Adam,

I share your frustration.  I've been involved since
the days of Paul Kane's WHOIS Committee in 2001 that
put out the usage survey.  But I think we need to get
a grip on certain realities, such as the fact that the
GAC has requested a study -- and that study will
inevitably move forward.  This means that the
discussion is far from over.

As long as further discussion is fated, my goal is to
structure such discussion in a more productive manner.
 Here is where I think the NCUC can take the lead and
have an impact.  Accordingly, I am pitching the notion
of face-to-face sessions on an intersessional basis
wherein discussions may result in some type of an
accord being reached (just as a least common
denominator understanding was reached in preliminary
new gTLD sessions).  I would love to see such
discussions proposed and chaired by the NCUC.

regards,
Danny


--- Adam Peake <ajp at GLOCOM.AC.JP> wrote:

> haven't there been enough face to face and all
> other kinds of meetings on whois?
>
> At 2:04 AM -0400 8/25/01,
> >
> >In short, I believe that ICANN should not be openly
> promoting a position on
> >WHOIS at this time that clearly breaks the Privacy
> Laws of the 15 nations of
> >the European Union, Israel, Argentina, and possibly
> other countries that may
> >well follow suit in due course. On such a sensitive
> issue as Privacy, the
> >Board is in an irreconcilable position in my
> opinion on this issue. Whatever
> >the network troubleshooting and TM issues may be,
> these must be balanced
> >against the societal issues with greater care than
> I have so far seen in
> >evidence.
> >
>
>
> Above is the first quote I have relevant to whois
> in my NCDNHC mailbox.  August 25 2001.  And I
> don't even follow the issue closely...  Enough
> already.
>
> Adam
>
>
>
> At 9:13 AM -0700 9/17/07, Danny Younger wrote:
> >Dear all,
> >
> >Milton has requested that I share a clarification
> of
> >my views with the list; I am happy to do so.
> >
> >Milton,
> >
> >I have no issues with Ross's proposal.  By the same
> >token, I do not believe that it (no standardized
> >policy) represents the best way forward.  I recall
> the
> >face-to-face multi-day policy session that we had
> on
> >the topic of new gTLDs in Washington where you and
> >Mawaki and I participated.  What emerged was a
> lowest
> >common denominator understanding (not exactly
> >consensus, but reasonably close) that guided a path
> >forward.
> >
> >I see the value in face-to-face discussions and
> >recognize the fact that other proposals heretofore
> >submitted had been given short shrift by members of
> >Jordyn Buchanan's WHOIS TF.  I am not prepared to
> give
> >up either on these proposals or on the concept of
> the
> >value of ongoing multi-stakeholder dialogue on this
> >topic.
> >
> >I would rather see the NCUC put forward a motion
> >calling for intersessional multi-party discussions
> on
> >WHOIS.  Less in-your-face, and more face-to-face.
> >
> >regards,
> >Danny Younger
> >
> >
> >       
>
>____________________________________________________________________________________
> >Take the Internet to Go: Yahoo!Go puts the
> >Internet in your pocket: mail, news, photos &
> >more.
> >http://mobile.yahoo.com/go?refer=1GNXIC
>




____________________________________________________________________________________
Take the Internet to Go: Yahoo!Go puts the Internet in your pocket: mail, news, photos & more.
http://mobile.yahoo.com/go?refer=1GNXIC