RE: [gnso-dow123] Re: [council] Regarding Letter from American Intellectual Property Law Association

[<Lucy.Nichols@xxxxxxxxx>]

Let's get you two some rotten fruit while in Marrakech and allow you to
continue to "duke" it out there! 

>-----Original Message-----
>From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx 
>[mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of ext Anthony Harris
>Sent: Thursday, June 22, 2006 11:42 AM
>To: ross@xxxxxxxxxx
>Cc: Council GNSO; gnso-dow123@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>Subject: Re: [gnso-dow123] Re: [council] Regarding Letter from 
>American Intellectual Property Law Association
>
>Ross,
>
>It seems I must thank you again, this
>time for confirming my words on attitude and civility!
>
>Kind regards
>
>Tony Harris
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Ross Rader" <ross@xxxxxxxxxx>
>To: "Anthony Harris" <harris@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>Cc: "Council GNSO" <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; 
><gnso-dow123@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>Sent: Thursday, June 22, 2006 12:15 PM
>Subject: Re: [gnso-dow123] Re: [council] Regarding Letter from 
>American Intellectual Property Law Association
>
>
>> Anthony Harris wrote:
>>
>>> The core business of operators can hardly revolve around 
>what happens 
>>> to WHOIS, no one ever stated that. WHOIS information is but one 
>>> useful resource that we see no need to hide or do away with 
>it. It is 
>>> comforting to see that you are vigilant over our website and it's 
>>> contents.
>>> There is work in progress going on there.
>>
>> The "we" you speak of and the "work in progress" are 
>directly related. 
>> I tried to go to your website to confirm whether or not any of the 
>> hosting companies and ISPs I work with are listed in your 
>membership. 
>> Instead, I found a list of members containing dead people, defunct 
>> organizations and an admonishment that the ISPCP website was 
>offline. If this is the "we"
>> that you speak of, I'm not sure that there's much more 
>conversation to 
>> be had.
>>
>>
>>> OK they are entitled to have a different viewpoint, and so?
>>
>> ...and so, you mentioned that you have yet to meet an operator whose 
>> interests are served by formulation 1. I mentioned that I 
>knew many of 
>> them and would be happy to make an introduction if you thought it 
>> would be helpful. My offer still stands.
>>
>>> This is a complete misrepresentation of fact. The ISPCP 
>never refused 
>>> to consider alternatives to unfettered access to WHOIS data. The 
>>> subject of tiered access began to be discussed quite some 
>time ago in 
>>> the TF (possibly you were not around at that time), and was 
>put aside 
>>> for later work, we did not oppose tiered access as a concept.
>>
>> Hmmm. Perhaps I'm confused then. The ISPCP constituency (such as it 
>> is) formal submission to the Whois Task Force pretty 
>explicitly states 
>> that "The ISPCP believes that regardless of the vast growth of the 
>> number of domain registrations, some core principles should remain 
>> unchanged, and ready access to all Whois data is one such principle."
>>
>> This is a pretty categorical statement and I'm hard pressed to 
>> reconcile the need for "ready access to all Whois data" with 
>the more 
>> restrictive data access methods in the various Tiered Access 
>proposals.
>>
>>
>>> I fail to see how highlighting a rather evident fact is 
>equivalent to 
>>> speaking out of context, it rather helps to see what we are talking 
>>> about in the midst of all the noise...I did not know you said this, 
>>> but thanks for the confirmation!
>>> Your actions speak for themselves, my opinion is unimportant. The 
>>> OPOC solution is a pretty lame suggestion, fully in context 
>with the 
>>> Formulation 1 which you successfully voted through. And thanks for 
>>> confirming the 'technical solutions proposed are not practical, nor 
>>> affordable' with regards to tiered access. And by the way it is not 
>>> that particular approach that is 'too agressive', but your 
>continuous 
>>> vehemence and intolerance which at least I find unacceptable.
>>>
>>
>> Stick your ad hominem in your back pocket where it belongs.
>>
>> I'm not disappointed to hear you characterize the registrar OPOC 
>> proposal as lame, but I am disappointed, again, with your stark 
>> refusal to make any sort of substantive submission that might help 
>> better the proposal. We have heard time and time again about 
>> everything that the ISPCP, BCUC and IPC don't like, but we 
>rarely, if 
>> ever hear, about how we can improve the substantive 
>proposals made in 
>> a manner that might be more acceptable to all involved. This is the 
>> advocacy problem that I speak of. If the OPOC proposal is 
>indeed lame, 
>> stop talking about it and instead, devote some of your rhetorical 
>> energy towards writing down a counter-proposal that we can consider. 
>> In other words, participate in the process or get out of the way.
>>
>> Regarding my statement concerning the costs of tiered 
>access, they are 
>> related to implementation of the new CRISP/IRIS protocol, the new 
>> compliance, authorization and credentialling programs that go along 
>> with it and the mass migration from the existing, simpler, WHOIS 
>> protocol that would need to occur. The OPOC proposal is an 
>attempt to 
>> implement tiered access within the current environment (i.e. 
>continue 
>> to provide law enforcement and government agency interests with an 
>> extremely broad dataset, provide other users with a more 
>limited, but 
>> more useful dataset).
>>
>>> You are quite right, there is nothing cooperative about the current 
>>> TF or the GNSO's policy development process. I would simply reply 
>>> that you have described, in utter perfection, the attitudes you 
>>> express in your frequent interventions, and your total 
>unwillingness 
>>> to accept disagreement with your positions. If little progress has 
>>> been made, I would not deny you your ample share of the credit.
>>
>> Again with the ad hominem Tony. I would have expected more from an 
>> elected representative to the GNSO Council. Perhaps manners 
>and grace 
>> aren't part of the eligibility requirements in the ISPCP election 
>> process - if there is one.
>>
>>
>>> It is a falsity that outreach was made to, at least, our 
>constituency.
>>> In fact, as you may recall in Luxembourg I attempted this, and was 
>>> rewarded later with a document containing......the OPOC !
>>
>> Fine. I'm happy to live with your more curious version of 
>events - I'm 
>> not sure that it matters one whit either. It is a well known 
>fact that 
>> the OPOC proposal was first published shortly after Mar del Plata 
>> after having been drafted by a group of registrars that 
>during the Argentine meeting.
>> It is a lesser known fact that there was a meeting between the ISPCP 
>> and a group of Registrars in Luxembourg as you point out. If 
>I recall, 
>> we discussed the issue of contactability and other matters - all 
>> principles that the "lame" OPOC proposal espouses. It is also a 
>> well-established fact that this same proposal has been 
>modified many, 
>> many times based on input from interested stakeholders in the 
>> registry, registrar, non-commercial and other communities. I'd be 
>> happy to amend it further based on input from yours, which I why I 
>> will continue to reiterate the question I have been 
>incessantly asking 
>> of you and others that seem to staunchly opposed to progress:
>>
>> "How can the existing proposals that have been tabled be changed so 
>> that they are suitable for the needs of the stakeholders you 
>represent?"
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> --
>>
>>                        -rr
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>                 "Don't be too timid and squeamish about your actions.
>>                                            All life is an experiment.
>>                             The more experiments you make 
>the better."
>>                         - Ralph Waldo Emerson
>>
>>
>> Contact Info:
>>
>> Ross Rader
>> Director, Research & Innovation
>> Tucows Inc.
>> t. 416.538.5492
>> c. 416.828.8783
>>
>> Get Started: http://start.tucows.com
>> My Blogware: http://www.byte.org
>>
>> 
>
>