[At-Large] [WHOIS-WG] Fwd: WHOIS Policy Review Team Final Report

[Avri Doria]

Hi,

Well, 3 out of how many SOI?  But it its a start. Congratulaions  on leading the way by following GNSO procedures on their open working groups. And I am glad to hear that ALAC its going to submit itself to such transparency.  I think it will help with ALAC credibility.  Once we have SOIs from all ALAC and RALO leaders we will all be able to see the truth of the issue for ourselves.

As for commercial vs noncommercial, many organizations may be non commercial, yet have a commercial focus, for sample, a chamber of commerce g not that I am accusing any region of having a chamber of commerce as a member.  Then again it its not like the ALSs are all that active, so this its probably not that pressing an issue at this point.

As for worries being baseless, how well I know. I think many of the worries about whois abuse may well be relatively baseless given the number of good actor registrations.  It does not do to punish the overwhelming majority because of worries about the few.



avri


Evan Leibovitch <evan at telly.org> wrote:

>On 15 May 2012 08:21, Avri Doria <avri at acm.org> wrote:
>
>
>> Actually without SOIs from all ALAC and RALO leaders we have no idea
>who
>> may our may not have commercial or other interest.
>
>
>It always helps to fact-check before making accusations.
>
>A number of the participants in this discussion, proponents of WHOIS
>accuracy and supporters of the RT report, have already published SOIs
>--
>including
>myself<https://community.icann.org/display/gnsosoi/Evan+Leibovitch+SOI>,
>Carlton
><https://community.icann.org/display/gnsosoi/Carlton+Samuels+SOI>and
>Alan <https://community.icann.org/display/gnsosoi/Alan+Greenberg+SOI>.
>And
>ALAC has already engaged the ICANN staffer who designed the GNSO SOI
>system
>to do the same for ALAC.
>
>Patrick's specific accusation is that commercial intrerests have swayed
>the
>ALAC position in favour of WHOIS accuracy. I have challenged that
>accusation, and offer contrary evidence. In the meantime, I am still
>awaiting confirmation from Patrick which At-Large leaders -- or even
>non-leader membership -- has demonstrated any of the motives that form
>his
>accusation.
>
>
>>  Also since a commercial entity can become an ALS, it is difficult to
>make
>> a sweeping statement that there are no underlying commercial
>interests.
>>
>
>It always helps to fact-check before making accusations.
>
>The current
>guidelines<http://www.atlarge.icann.org/correspondence/structures-app.htm>about
>ALS criteria preclude commercial entities. ALSs must be
>membership-based organizations. Those members may themselves be
>commercial
>entities, but the ALS itself must be  primarily engaged in serving its
>membership. There is no demand for non-profit incorporation since that
>designation is not globally universal or accessible. These are minimum
>criteria, I am aware of at least one ALS that was denied membership in
>recent memory because its aims were deemed by the RALO to be too
>commercial.
>
>
>
>> I fear that perhaps thou doth protest too much.  I always worry when
>I see
>> such an indignant response to a question about hidden motives.
>>
>
>
>And worries can be as completely baseless as accusations.
>
>If there are hidden motives, by all means let's expose them. Given the
>current atmosphere regarding conflicts of interests within ICANN,
>exposure
>of agendas is heartily welcomed by many including me. But to do so
>requires
>more than an evidence-free guess.
>
>- Evan
>_______________________________________________
>At-Large mailing list
>At-Large at atlarge-lists.icann.org
>https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large
>
>At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org