Statement explaining nomcom appointee Avri Doria's vote on the Whois PDP. I voted for motions 1 and 3 and against 2. A lot of give and take had gone into the OPoC proposal and I felt that it deserved a chance for implementation. And though there were a few large issues that needed to be worked out, for example the reveal function and the authorisation model for levels of access, I felt that a solution was still possible with more work. My vote for motion 1 also reflects my belief that the process of implementation, including a genuine iterative process between the staff and council, allows individual issues to be explored at a more practical level and within an implementation context. Sometimes issues that seem intractable as abstract principles become solvable at the practical level. As I have mentioned on several occasions in the council, I do not believe there is a strict line that separates the policy issues from the implementation issues and believe that often the implementation makes implicit policy. This is one of the bases for my belief that working on detailed questions that emerged from an implementation effort would have assisted the council in coming to further consensus on its policy differences. I have mixed feelings regarding Motion 2. I certainly support the goal of ending this PDP, especially if we are not trying to complete work on OPoC. As for further studies, I can see a role for professionally done studies and surveys, which are scientifically well formed, methodologically sound and statistically valid. Part of the basis for these sorts of studies requires a good understanding of the requirements, which involves knowing what questions the study is intended to answer. One concern is that without the strictest rigor in defining studies, they often end up as one sided and merely serve to confirm the opinions of the surveyor or of the surveyor's client. I think we all have the experience of seeing competing studies on each side of an issue. I am apprehensive about our ability to deliver on high quality rigorous preparations in the schedule demanded by the motion, especially with our current work load and when we are about to go through the holiday season followed by the initial work on restructuring. One of the reasons given, off line, by some for the rush in initiating the studies was to support the calls being made by the GAC. While I have no difficulty in supporting the GAC on this issue, I do not feel that we need to rush and do not believe they are asking us to rush. Rather, I feel we need to let the dust settle before reengaging in this particular tussle. Now that we have approved this motion, however, I am committed to completing its requirements as well as possible in the time allotted. On motion 3, I believe that Whois is unsuited to the service to which ICANN is putting it and it is no longer needed for its original purpose as was discussed in a paper included in the appendices of the Task Force report. Given that there is no consensus on the service it is being required to provide and that it is not fit for this purpose, I believe it should be retired from service. I also strongly believe that Whois causes more harm to the general public then it prevents. And while I understand that investigative agencies, both public and private, find it a useful public database in their hunt for a few miscreants, I do not not believe that this warrants harm against the majority of registrants who would never intentionally misuse their domain name. I think the harm this tool causes to global civil liberties is far too serious for ICANN to continue to require its use.