Dear Robin,
Suzanne Sene's message shows us their time frame as follows;
"to meet the December deadline for gac plenary approval of the text, all
gac members are requested to submit comments via the working group 1
discus thread on whois according to the following timeline:
October 13: submission of first round of comments
October 27: revised text circulated
November 2: submission of second round of comments
November 27: final version of text circulated
we will discuss the text during the working group 1 meeting in sao paulo
on December 3, followed by discussion and adoption by the gac plenary."
chun
On Mon, 25 Sep 2006, Robin Gross wrote:
> Do we have a time-frame for GAC to "finalize" its position? By when
> should people have their letters in to their GAC reps to make a difference?
>
> I like the idea of encouraging other civil society groups like EDRi to
> join in this effort.
>
> Robin
>
>
>
> Chun Eung Hwi wrote:
>
> >Dear all,
> >
> >Thank you for your information and some insightful talks!
> >I have already proposed to discuss what comments our government will make
> >on this US-Australian proposal in our internet addressing policy advisory
> >committee - it is a governmental committee where some civilian members are
> >invited including me. So,coming Friday, we will discuss it.
> >
> >I have also some questions how procedure have been taken in GAC. In last
> >GAC communique, they wrote "The GAC believes therefore that the final
> >definition of the purpose of WHOIS data needs to reflect the public policy
> >concerns expressed by GAC members. The GAC is intending to produce policy
> >advice on the purpose and use of WHOIS in the form of principles for the
> >Sao Paulo meeting." However, I don't know whether the work of drafting gac
> >whois principle document was mandated to some government. I will try to
> >find what happened in GAC and if there is any procedural problem for this
> >drafting process.
> >
> >In Friday meeting, I will explain what GNSO whois purpose definition
> >really means and if possible - although I am not so optimistic - I will
> >persuade our government to take more supportive position to GNSO
> >definition. Of course,bottom line is to make her not to support the
> >present gac draft document. I also hope other NCUC members to act in this
> >way. One problem is that we have very limited number of active members.
> >Then, can we share this information with other civil society members? I
> >think in European countries, EDRI could do something. And some other apc
> >members would do so in their own countries. Can we move it more
> >effectively?
> >
> >
> >regards,
> >
> >Chun
> >
> >
> >On Sun, 24 Sep 2006, Milton Mueller wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >>Danny,
> >>
> >>Dr. Milton Mueller
> >>Syracuse University School of Information Studies
> >>http://www.digital-convergence.org
> >>http://www.internetgovernance.org
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>>>>Danny Younger <[log in to unmask]> 09/23/06 3:48 PM >>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>This is not a case of two govts working in private and
> >>>then declaring what is "public policy".
> >>>
> >>>
> >>As a matter of fact, it is. There are no other members of this so-called
> >>"working group." Name one. Where is the composition of this WG posted?
> >>This "working group" has been selected by Sene to include only
> >>governments who agree with the US position.
> >>
> >>What happened here is very simple. The Australian delegate drafted this
> >>position. Full stop. The position does not reflect the views of any
> >>government besides those of the US and Australia, despite the fact that
> >>opposing views have been expressed by at least two other governments,
> >>the Article 29 working group, etc.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>>Suzanne Sene functions as the convenor of the GAC
> >>>working group on WHOIS.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>Sene created this WG herself and hand-picked the people on it.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>>That working group (probably more than two members)
> >>>agreed on text drafted by the Australian GAC contingent.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>I believe you are mistaken. Provide one fact to support this assertion.
> >>Why are you rationalizing the GAC when we both know it is completely
> >>manipulated as regards this issue?
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>>I see nothing sinister in the process. It may well be
> >>>that other GAC members will disagree with the language
> >>>presented and will seek modifications, enhancements,
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>What troubles me is the rush to meddle in the internal
> >>>affairs of another advisory group and the call for a
> >>>reactionary letter-writing campaign.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>Danny, wake up! The USG and the IPR lobbyists have been engaged in a
> >>full-scale reactionary lobbying campaign ever since the GNSO redefined
> >>WHOIS purpose. What I am proposing is simply that citizens whose
> >>governments are supposed to represent them try to get their govts to
> >>react. It is a well known fact that most GAC representatives have no
> >>idea what is going on and sit in the meetings and read their email, or
> >>are unwilling or afraid to publicly clash with the US.
> >>
> >>GAC members -- national governments -- often claim to represent the
> >>public interest. Well, let them hear from the public then.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>>Would you want the GAC or any other constituent body
> >>>engaging in a letter writing campaign to the NCUC?
> >>>
> >>>
> >>Where have you BEEN, Danny? Do you know how much pressure Bruce Tonkin
> >>has been under and how many secret meetings between USG, registrars, and
> >>registries have been held to discuss whois?
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>>Would you like it if external interests attempted to
> >>>apply pressure on select NCUC members in order to
> >>>achieve a certain result?
> >>>
> >>>
> >>Your grasp of the politics of this situation is deeply strange. I don't
> >>know what else to say.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>>Let the GAC do whatever it needs to do.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>What is the GAC? Do you mean the US Dept of Commerce and one or two
> >>other allies?
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>>That's their
> >>>business, not ours. Our business is to formulate a
> >>>WHOIS proposal that serves the noncommercial interest,
> >>>yet thus far I have not seen any attempt to craft such
> >>>a model.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>Huh? Pay closer attention, you're still new here.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> >
>
--
------------------------------------------------------------
Chun Eung Hwi
General Secretary, PeaceNet | fax: (+82) 2-2649-2624
Seoul Yangchun P.O.Box 81 | pcs: (+82) 19-259-2667
Seoul, 158-600, Korea | eMail: [log in to unmask]
------------------------------------------------------------
|
