[NA-Discuss] Report of the WHOIS Study Hypothesis Group attached

[Brendler, Beau]

>>I'm willing to take on the project.  Is anyone else willing to work on this?<<

Agreed. Yes.

-----Original Message-----
From: Danny Younger [mailto:dannyyounger at yahoo.com]
Sent: Thursday, August 28, 2008 10:56 AM
To: Ross Rader; Brendler, Beau
Cc: NA Discuss
Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] Report of the WHOIS Study Hypothesis Group attached

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 at consumer.org> wrote:

> From: Brendler, Beau <Brenbe at consumer.org>
> Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] Report of the WHOIS Study Hypothesis Group
> attached
> To: "Ross Rader" <ross at hover.com>
> Cc: "NA Discuss" <na-discuss at 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 at atlarge-lists.icann.org
> [mailto:na-discuss-bounces at 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 at atlarge-lists.icann.org
> http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss_atlarge-lis
> ts.icann.org
>
> Visit the NARALO online at http://www.naralo.org
> ------
>
> ***
> Scanned
>
> **********************************************************************
> ******
> ********
> SCANNED
>
> **********************************************************************
> ******
> ********
>
> ------
> NA-Discuss mailing list
> NA-Discuss at atlarge-lists.icann.org
> http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss_atlarge-lis
> ts.icann.org
>
> Visit the NARALO online at http://www.naralo.org
> ------




***
Scanned

****************************************************************************
********
SCANNED

****************************************************************************
********