Wendy and all, I agree with your analysis to the degree that Whois issues especially those revolving around privacy and disclosure or the eroding attempts of personal privacy as it relates to Whois data. I particularly agree with you last paragraph if I understand the nuance of it correctly and fully. As the current USG administration sunsets and a new administration is on the rise, I believe that many of the erosions of privacy will be either halted significantly reversed. However this also may be wishful thinking on my part. In any event, my earlier post on this thread still stands. If this position of our members including myself disgruntals or displeases anyone, well that's just too bad. -----Original Message-----

From: Wendy Seltzer <wendy@seltzer.com> Sent: Apr 15, 2008 12:32 PM To: Cc: NA Discuss <na-discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org> Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] WHOIS study group...NA RALO weigh in?

My personal viewpoint, after seven years of WHOIS task forces and working groups, is that more studies will not be useful in policy development, but rather are proposed by several constituencies to justify further delay with the status quo.

I see WHOIS as a political problem at this point, not a problem of lack of facts. GNSO constituencies have been wedded to positions based on their own interests, and they're unlikely to change those positions even with new studies. So studies won't change anything in policy development. Without assurance that constituencies will change their policy recommendations if shown new facts, I don't see that registrant-fee-funded studies serve any ICANN purpose.

For that reason, I have recommended against ICANN funding any new WHOIS studies. I'd rather see pressure to reach consensus based on a sunsetting of policies that no longer command consensus.

--Wendy

Ross Rader wrote:

...

The problem with more study on this issue is that it is only a delaying tactic intended to preserve the status quo. The issue has been studied to death. The proposed studies will not be well bounded, nor geared towards action. They will be intentionally broad and the analysis, if any is done, will be purposely weak and obtuse.

I have no doubt that there will be many people that sign onto the notion of further studies with the best of intentions, but I strongly doubt that the results will point us in any different direction than what we've already discussed and described over the past ten years. Worse still, those that seek to abuse the privacy rights of individuals for their own gain will enjoy another few years free pass to this open database as we study the nooks and crannies of this issue even further.

/ross

Brendler, Beau wrote:

...

Danny Younger, Wendy Seltzer and I are in a WHOIS study group with a really tight time frame, like three weeks, before it has to report back to the GNSO council on whether further study of WHOIS is needed, along with other issues.

I think opinions differ among the three of us in the group, which has about a dozen members. Opinions aside, I wanted to see if the NA RALO would like to convey either as a group or as individuals their opinions on the issues presented to the WHOIS working group.

Regards, Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 281k members/stakeholders strong!) "Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" - Abraham Lincoln "Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt "If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B; liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by P: i.e., whether B is less than PL." United States v. Carroll Towing (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947] =============================================================== Updated 1/26/04 CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS. div. of Information Network Eng. INEG. INC. ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com My Phone: 214-244-4827