[ALAC] Fwd: Draft GNSO WHOIS RT Final Report Summary Chart

[Holly Raiche]

Hi Evan

I usually agree with you - and certainly agree that delaying tactics have been a prominent feature of how ICANN (doesn't) work.  But the points that the SSAC makes are well made - it boils down to please define the problem before you try to solve it.  Otherwise, you risk coming up with the wrong answer.

And certainly when I attended the briefing on Whois in Prague, there was a good discussion pointing out, inter alia, that somewhere we need to define the level of accuracy required.  So maybe we support immediate implementation of what is (and has been, for sometime) required - but support a long term discussion on the issues SSAc raises.

Holly
On 29/09/2012, at 1:14 AM, Evan Leibovitch wrote:

> On 28 September 2012 09:39, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca> wrote:
>  
> We do not want the review team Recs shelved pending the more glorious project.
> 
> Vigorously agreed.
> 
> The high-level review suggested by the SSAC -- which may very well help design a WHOIS NG or even full replacement -- should not hinder, nor be used as an excuse to impede, the addressing of immediate short term deficiencies. Perfect not being the enemy of the good and all that...
> 
> My fear is that those against robust and trustworthy WHOIS -- right now, basically (what I would call) extreme privacy advocated and an industry resistant to change -- will use the SSAC as a crutch to delay or dilute the RT recommendations.
> 
> While I don't attribute this to the SSAC, it is a common tactic within ICANN to resist change by ask anew for first-princples re-evaluation of need. Either that, or definitions.
> 
> - Evan
>