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@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of ext Anthony Harris Sent: Thursday, June 22, 2006 11:42 AM To: ross@tucows.com Cc: Council GNSO; gnso-dow123@gnso.icann.org 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@tucows.com> To: "Anthony Harris" <harris@cabase.org.ar> Cc: "Council GNSO" <council@gnso.icann.org>; <gnso-dow123@gnso.icann.org> 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