candidates for review teams.

[Kim G. von Arx]

Milton: 

I am not sure how to respond to your question as I know as much as you do about the purpose of the RT and the history of ICANN's WHOIS endeavors.  I agree that we need a clear understanding of the terms of reference of the WHOIS RT, nevertheless, I certainly believe that it is of utmost importance that we have strong a representative who understands the WHOIS debate and has participated in the WHOIS issue in one form or another to ensure a fair and equitable representation of all views concerned.

Let me turn the questions around (the ones you posed in this email and in your previous email) since you also suggested that you were interested in participating in the WHOIS RT, what are your views and what is your experience with the WHOIS debate at ICANN and elsewhere?  I am not married to being NCUC's representative for this RT as it is a fairly significant commitment and I would be more than happy to step aside for someone who would be more suitable.  I simply put my name forward because I thought I can add value to the endeavor because: (1) I care about this issue, (2) I have significant experience in the WHOIS review and stakeholder collaboration with respect to that topic, (3) I have the commitment to further this discussion to, hopefully, bring it to an eventual satisfactory and "speedy" (in ICANN terms) conclusion.  

Kim  

  


On 11 Jul 2010, at 13:09, Milton L Mueller wrote:

> Kim,
> Thanks for your detailed answer. Let me add some comments below.
> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> 
>> I would be excited to take on the responsibilities to review, advise on,
>> and assist in the implementation of a WHOIS policy that is mutually
>> acceptable to all stakeholders of ICANN.  I am certainly aware that the
>> views diverge widely, but I am confident that the review team, as a
>> cohesive group, can reach a consensus that will appease all groups to a
>> large extent.
> 
> This is one of the interesting - and scary - things about the whole "review team" concept. As I have said in my analysis of the AoC, it reproduces the politics of ICANN and almost invites the review team to re-make whatever policy it is they are reviewing. Can you give me a better idea of what it is the RT actually is reviewing? And what effect its reviews might have? It is always been a bit odd that the U.S. government singled out Whois for a special review team. 
> 
>> Of course, no solution will be able to cater to
>> everyone's needs and that, I would submit, is not the goal, but to find
>> an equitable balance among the various views, needs, and desires.
> 
> Here it sounds as if you think the RT will be making policy. I think we need a better understanding of what the purpose of this RT is. 
> 
> --MM