I found Ross's suggestion to be reasonable: "A proposal which balanced the information privacy requirements of individual registrants with the disclosure needs of consumer protection interests *might* have a chance of being ratified as policy." The registrar constituency earlier made a noble stab at solving the problem through their OPoC proposal (and we should thank Ross for all his hard work on that effort). I would now like to see the ALAC float a proposal of their own. All the talk in the world means nothing if we are unwilling to lay down a formal proposal for GNSO consideration. ... but of course that means an ALAC WG filled with members committed to getting a piece of policy work accomplished; it means having a strong chair, agreed-upon terms of reference, a set schedule, regular meetings, individual work requirements, shared goals and active participation from a very large number of ALSs and individuals worldwide. I'm willing to take on the project. Is anyone else willing to work on this? --- On Thu, 8/28/08, Brendler, Beau <Brenbe@consumer.org> wrote:
From: Brendler, Beau <Brenbe@consumer.org> Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] Report of the WHOIS Study Hypothesis Group attached To: "Ross Rader" <ross@hover.com> Cc: "NA Discuss" <na-discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org> Date: Thursday, August 28, 2008, 10:36 AM This is the process the community is following now. We can work with it and try to advise and/or seek change accordingly, or stand to one side and repeat the same bromides over and over. The ALAC should say something -- even if it's a rehash of similar sentiments to yours, Ross. However, I believe those sentiments are out of touch with reality as far as the broad user community is concerned. They may not be out of touch with the realities of what registrars want.
Beau Brendler
-----Original Message----- From: na-discuss-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:na-discuss-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of Ross Rader Sent: Thursday, August 28, 2008 8:08 AM Cc: NA Discuss Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] Report of the WHOIS Study Hypothesis Group attached
On Aug 28, 2008, at 7:53 AM, Danny Younger wrote:
I'm part of the contingent that believes that further WHOIS studies are a total waste of time.
We don't need further studies to tell us that which is self- evident. We're not idiots. We all can see what is going on. We, in this ICANN community, are the experts on this topic and certainly don't need to pay others to investigate that which is glaringly obvious.
What we have here is nothing more than a stalling tactic.
Largely spearheaded by the United States Government.
Much community time has been wasted on this subject and I agree with Danny that the current course of action will do very little to resolve the issue to anyone's satisfaction - save those interests that are comfortable with the status quo.
If anything should be studied, it should focus on determining the degree to which current registrants (and no one else) is comfortable with the current whois disclosure policies. It may well be that this issue is not important to the registrant community and therefore, the status quo could be much more acceptable than we might think.
However, I don't believe this is the case. I think it would be very helpful for the At-large community to take a proactive stance on this issue instead of dancing to the USG and intellectual property community drums. A proposal which balanced the information privacy requirements of individual registrants with the disclosure needs of consumer protection interests *might* have a chance of being ratified as policy.
If the GNSO continues along its current track, I predict we will be stuck with the status quo for another five years, while the rest of the world implements more balanced privacy practices (i.e. the new Canadian whois policy went into effect earlier this year, and contrary to popular propaganda, the intellectual property world did *not* come to an end).
As a slight aside, a question to those that advocate study of this issue - what progress has been made over the last year to achieve the better understanding of the issues since the Council determined that "more studies" was the way to go.
/ross
------ NA-Discuss mailing list NA-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss_atlarge-lists.ica...
Visit the NARALO online at http://www.naralo.org ------
*** Scanned
**************************************************************************** ******** SCANNED
**************************************************************************** ********
------ NA-Discuss mailing list NA-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss_atlarge-lists.ica...
Visit the NARALO online at http://www.naralo.org ------