ICANN/GNSO GNSO Email List Archives


<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

Re: [ga] BC response to WHOIS was runaround ;-)

  • To: ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Subject: Re: [ga] BC response to WHOIS was runaround ;-)
  • From: jwkckid1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Date: Thu, 30 Aug 2007 20:28:12 -0500 (GMT-05:00)
  • Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=dk20050327; d=ix.netcom.com; b=gjlXJmDpneyfHBbI2r+ievi1Oy2tOBnAGkHb/QOE7g1U2P3lAxHWMRLdMMMXMc0V; h=Message-ID:Date:From:Reply-To:To:Subject:Mime-Version:Content-Transfer-Encoding:X-Mailer:Content-Type:X-ELNK-Trace:X-Originating-IP;
  • Reply-to: jwkckid1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Sender: owner-ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx

<STYLE>body{font-family: Geneva,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:9pt;background-color: #ffffff;color: black;}</STYLE>

<META content="MSHTML 6.00.2900.3157" name=GENERATOR></HEAD>
<BODY id=compText>
<STYLE>body{font-family: Geneva,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:9pt;background-color: #ffffff;color: black;}</STYLE>

<META content="MSHTML 6.00.2900.3157" name=GENERATOR>
<P>Mr. Dierker and all,</P>
<P>&nbsp; I did not get the impression that the Whois WG and subgroups were a</P>
<P>"Runaround" at all.&nbsp; Rather I believe the problem's were diverse interests</P>
<P>which were and remain entrenched, and a decided lack of leadership on</P>
<P>the part of the chair.&nbsp; SubgroupC and B did a relitively good job of yet</P>
<P>again hashing out the differences which have public policy implications,</P>
<P>namely privacy and security of registrants vs a desire for third party access</P>
<P>to anyones registration private and personal data without restriction.</P>
<P>&nbsp; However not that the 110th congress has strengthened the privacy act,</P>
<P>and eliminated several key sections of the Patriot act which were intrusive</P>
<P>and largly unecessary to fight the war on terror and the EU has strengthened</P>
<P>its privacy regulations along with the UK's initiative &lt; ITC&gt; in public access</P>
<P>vs privacy, governments all over the globe are doing what ICANN couldn't</P>
<P>or wouldn't do as a result of lack of leadership, common sense, and a propensity</P>
<P>to favor IP interests over small and medium sized ecommerce business folk as</P>
<P>well as users.<BR><BR><BR></P>
<BLOCKQUOTE style="PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 0px; BORDER-LEFT: #0000ff 2px solid">-----Original Message----- <BR>From: Hugh Dierker <HDIERKER2204@xxxxxxxxx><BR>Sent: Aug 30, 2007 8:48 AM <BR>To: ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx <BR>Subject: Re: [ga] BC response to WHOIS was runaround ;-) <BR><BR>
<DIV>While the WG was in progress I got a feeling for the enormity of the problem. I immediately also go the impression that the WG was really just to hash out problems and come up with process solutions to handle the problems. I understood that there would be no attempt to reach a consensus. And that the differeing constituencies would have a word on how to proceed.&nbsp; Well it looks like they have done and are doing all that.</DIV>
<DIV>So it is and was a runaround - well at least they had a plan and stuck to it.</DIV>
<DIV>I think it would be well for us to act like a constituency and create our own proposed resolution, following the template of the BC.</DIV>
<DIV>Eric<BR><BR><B><I>Danny Younger &lt;dannyyounger@xxxxxxxxx&gt;</I></B> wrote: </DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE class=replbq style="PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #1010ff 2px solid">http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg03777.html<BR><BR>"Here is a proposed resolution from the Business<BR>Constituency:<BR><BR>1. The GNSO Council hereby accepts the WG report and<BR>acknowledges the tremendous effort by WG participants<BR>and ICANN staff. <BR>2. The GNSO Council particularly recognizes the WG<BR>chair for his adept leadership through a contentious<BR>and controversial WG process. <BR>3. The GNSO Council does not consider the WG report as<BR>an adequate basis for any implementation of OPOC. <BR>4. The GNSO Council requests that ICANN staff proceed<BR>with the 4 studies described in Section 8 of the WG<BR>report, as follows: <BR><BR>1. Proceed with study 4 on the characteristics of the<BR>Whois database first. This study should include a<BR>review and analysis of the<BR>different proxy services. <BR>2. Following completion of study 4, and to the extent<BR>it reveals that there is a problem with the current<BR>Whois policy, ICANN Staff should proceed with study<BR>one - the cost/benefit analysis. Completion of study<BR>4 should help determine the parameters of the<BR>cost/benefit analysis, since the scope of the problem<BR>will be known and documented. <BR>3. To the extent that the cost/benefit analysis<BR>determines that the benefits of changing the Whois<BR>policy exceed the costs, ICANN Staff should proceed<BR>with a third study that merges study two on<BR>self-certification (this should include an analysis of<BR>an ex post facto review mechanism) and study 3 on<BR>authentication (which should include authentication of<BR>any parties with a legitimate interest in the data)."<BR><BR><BR><BR><BR>____________________________________________________________________________________<BR>======= <BR><BR>'Regards,<BR>Jeffrey A. Williams<BR>Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 277k members/stakeholders strong!)<BR>"Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" -<BR>&nbsp;&nbsp; Abraham Lincoln<BR><BR>"Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is very<BR>often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt<BR><BR>"If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B; liability<BR>depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by<BR>P: i.e., whether B is less than PL."<BR>United States v. Carroll Towing&nbsp; (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947]<BR>===============================================================<BR>Updated 1/26/04<BR>CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS. div. of<BR>Information Network Eng.&nbsp; INEG. INC.<BR>ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail jwkckid1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx<BR></BLOCKQUOTE><BR>

<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>