Danny,

As Ross explained to the council, his motion does not preclude
any study to proceed. This motion does not say the GNSO and the
ICANN community are done with WHOIS. Its result would create a
new start, and certainly an impetus for serious discussion as
stakeholders will then have an acute sense of urgency to work
seriously toward a sustainable solution. 

You were evoking some common denominator reached in D.C. in the
new gTLD policy, but frankly I personally don't remember much. I
however remember many other issues that seemed to stabilized at
some point, but eventually have disapeared from the final
outcome if not replaced by the exact opposite we argued against
(and then seemed to convince our colleagues.) The reality is,
those who have the resources to sustain continuous participation
in lenghty debates on the same issue over 3, 5, 6 years -- in
the pursuant of their own agenda as opposed to an opened
discussion that can lead to a compromise -- stick around and get
to change whatever common denominator you thought you have
reached.

That's our reality. By the end of this year, a substantial part
of the council membership will probably change. Ross already
announced his successor; others, including myself, are
considering leaving as well; not sure where Avri will be, etc.
I believe proceeding with Ross's motion will be a good way to
reduce the share of politics and other mind games in the WHOIS
debate, and increase that of serious and considerate discussion.

Note that the WHOIS service provisions have never had the
imprimatur of a consensus policy to get in the ICANN's
contracts; we therefore don't need one to get them out of there
until there is a proper one to bring them back in the format the
community will agree upon.

Mawaki

--- Danny Younger <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> Adam,
> 
> I share your frustration.  I've been involved since
> the days of Paul Kane's WHOIS Committee in 2001 that
> put out the usage survey.  But I think we need to get
> a grip on certain realities, such as the fact that the
> GAC has requested a study -- and that study will
> inevitably move forward.  This means that the
> discussion is far from over.
> 
> As long as further discussion is fated, my goal is to
> structure such discussion in a more productive manner.
>  Here is where I think the NCUC can take the lead and
> have an impact.  Accordingly, I am pitching the notion
> of face-to-face sessions on an intersessional basis
> wherein discussions may result in some type of an
> accord being reached (just as a least common
> denominator understanding was reached in preliminary
> new gTLD sessions).  I would love to see such
> discussions proposed and chaired by the NCUC.
> 
> regards,
> Danny
> 
> 
> --- Adam Peake <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> 
> > haven't there been enough face to face and all 
> > other kinds of meetings on whois?
> > 
> > At 2:04 AM -0400 8/25/01,
> > >
> > >In short, I believe that ICANN should not be openly
> > promoting a position on
> > >WHOIS at this time that clearly breaks the Privacy
> > Laws of the 15 nations of
> > >the European Union, Israel, Argentina, and possibly
> > other countries that may
> > >well follow suit in due course. On such a sensitive
> > issue as Privacy, the
> > >Board is in an irreconcilable position in my
> > opinion on this issue. Whatever
> > >the network troubleshooting and TM issues may be,
> > these must be balanced
> > >against the societal issues with greater care than
> > I have so far seen in
> > >evidence.
> > >
> > 
> > 
> > Above is the first quote I have relevant to whois 
> > in my NCDNHC mailbox.  August 25 2001.  And I 
> > don't even follow the issue closely...  Enough 
> > already.
> > 
> > Adam
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > At 9:13 AM -0700 9/17/07, Danny Younger wrote:
> > >Dear all,
> > >
> > >Milton has requested that I share a clarification
> > of
> > >my views with the list; I am happy to do so.
> > >
> > >Milton,
> > >
> > >I have no issues with Ross's proposal.  By the same
> > >token, I do not believe that it (no standardized
> > >policy) represents the best way forward.  I recall
> > the
> > >face-to-face multi-day policy session that we had
> > on
> > >the topic of new gTLDs in Washington where you and
> > >Mawaki and I participated.  What emerged was a
> > lowest
> > >common denominator understanding (not exactly
> > >consensus, but reasonably close) that guided a path
> > >forward.
> > >
> > >I see the value in face-to-face discussions and
> > >recognize the fact that other proposals heretofore
> > >submitted had been given short shrift by members of
> > >Jordyn Buchanan's WHOIS TF.  I am not prepared to
> > give
> > >up either on these proposals or on the concept of
> > the
> > >value of ongoing multi-stakeholder dialogue on this
> > >topic.
> > >
> > >I would rather see the NCUC put forward a motion
> > >calling for intersessional multi-party discussions
> > on
> > >WHOIS.  Less in-your-face, and more face-to-face.
> > >
> > >regards,
> > >Danny Younger
> > >
> > >
> > >       
> >
>
>____________________________________________________________________________________
> > >Take the Internet to Go: Yahoo!Go puts the 
> > >Internet in your pocket: mail, news, photos & 
> > >more.
> > >http://mobile.yahoo.com/go?refer=1GNXIC
> > 
> 
> 
> 
>        
>
____________________________________________________________________________________
> Take the Internet to Go: Yahoo!Go puts the Internet in your
> pocket: mail, news, photos & more. 
> http://mobile.yahoo.com/go?refer=1GNXIC
>