[ALAC] Analysis of WHOIS AoC RT Recommendations.

[Evan Leibovitch]

On 4 September 2012 17:29, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca> wrote:

>  Evan, we are certainly not bound by the politics or practices of the
> GNSO, and pointedly, that is why I suggested that a PDP might not always be
> necessary in the GNSO giving policy advice to the Board. But we are bound
> by the ICANN Bylaws, unless we are explicitly suggesting that they be
> changed. And currently the Bylaws do specify that the GNSO is the body that
> formulates and recommends GNSO Policy to the Board. The catch in this case
> is determining what is upper-case-P gTLD policy, and what is not. And we
> are making the case that with one exception, the initial implementation of
> the recommendations are NOT upper-case-P gTLD policy.
>

I hear you. But that's a level of detail one step down from the core
message, which (AFAIK) is not yet agreed to.

We need full buy-in on the "what" (WHOIS fixing is an immediate priority)
before dealing with "how" (many of the RT things can be done by staff
without re-consulting the GNSO).
If the Board is not in agreement that this is a priority to fix quickly, it
will punt the recommendations to the GNSO, including the ones it doesn't
need to.

Even agreeing that certain matters are pure implementation that can be done
by staff is not assurance of anything, as we have seen through the current
sad state of contractual compliance. So it is important that we get across
as our main point -- as forcefully as possible -- that the status quo is
unacceptable. *How* ICANN addresses that problem (assuming it agrees),
while important, is secondary. What point is arguing details if we don't
have buy-in on the principle?

Perhaps my cynicism (that the Board lacks our concern about the broken
state of WHOIS implementation and enforcement) is unwarranted. I certainly
hope so.

- Evan