Harold, Kathy and all NCUC folks -
I'm glad we're talking about outreach.  We (EPIC) are going to try
and recruit public comment to these Task Forces through the GILC list
(Global Internet Liberties Campaign), EDRi (European Digital Rights
Initiative), TACD, the Privacy Coalition, and other lists/groups.
We'll really need help getting comments submitted, especially in Task
Force 3 (summary of TF 3 progress below).  Kathy, I would like to do
a conference call.  Harold, if you or anyone else on the list has
ideas for other groups to contact about this please let us know.
Regarding TF3, I'm going to send to these lists the Preliminary
Report and an alternative to the Best Practices section which was
submitted by the Registrars constituency.  That alternative is still
not as privacy friendly as we would like, but is much better than the
one included in the Report.  I'm hoping we'll get a lot of comments
submitted on that version, giving it some legitimacy and pulling the
document as a whole to the left - or whatever radical side it may be
:).  Our document isn't as long as TF2's, but I know they can be
tedious, so we can draft some sample comments for people if that
helps.    It is tough to get people interested in these detailed
policy issues and tough to make it all understandable, though I think
you're right Harold that this is an area people could be attracted to.
Anyway, hope everyone's well.  - Frannie


To update you on Task Force 3:
Bottom line, our document stinks.  The report itself shows that we
got no results to our surveys, and therefore no data to make any
policy recommendations.  This was a good thing! However, at the last
minute the IP constituency drafted a Best Practices section - we'd
argued against it saying no data collection meant we were unable to
recommend Best Practices. We voted on Thursday/Friday on this
trickier part of the document, just the Best Practices section.  A
rep from the IP constituency is chairing our task force and he really
refused to take reasonable input to amend this document significantly
before the vote.
So, I'd been working with Ross Rader from the Registrars constituency
to get an alternate document submitted for public comment.  We needed
to vote down the IP document. We had the votes of the At-Large as
well and just needed the Registries.  We thought we had the
Registries vote - we were calling everyone we knew to try and sway
that vote, but in the end they abstained from certain parts of the
document, but voted yes on some points, unfortunately passing that
draft as a whole for public comment.
Now we're in a situation were we have to reframe this discussion and
are going to rely heavily on public comment.  On our last TF call, I
said that given this task force's reluctance to accept constituency
reps input, I didn't see what would change in terms of adjusting the
document as a response to the public comment.  What's resulted is
that I'm in charge of reviewing, etc. all public comments and
summarizing for our task force.  So... I really need many NCUC
submissions.
I'll send out to the lists above the text of the current best
practices and the alternative document from the Registrars.
Let me know what you think, but I think I'll see if we can get
comments shooting down the current Best Practices section entirely
and commenting on how we would like to change the registrars
document.  If we work from that one, at least we have a couple of
constituencies to support it, and possibly the Registries.

>>Whois Task Force 3 Preliminary report can be viewed here
>>(alternative Best Practices section is near the end.
>>http://gnso.icann.org/issues/whois-privacy/TF3PreliminaryWithRCMR1.pdf
>>
>>Comments for the Whois Task Force 3 Preliminary Report can be submitted to:
>>[log in to unmask]
>>The archive of comments for this report is available at:
http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/whois-tf3-report-comments.


At 03:06 PM -0400 06.01.2004, Harold Feld wrote:
>Kathy, my thanks for your tireless and excellent work on this issue.
>
>To the rest of us:
>To what extent, if any, are the organizations in the NCUC reaching out
>on this issue to other organizations?  This is an issue of enormous
>public importance.  Organizations and individuals that generally do not
>care about "DNS policy" or "Internet governance" may care about this.
>In the United States in particular, this may have great value for
>educating U.S. policymakers and Federal agencies that are pushing for
>"thick" registries without consideration of the social cost.
>
>I hope we will all seek to spread word to our colleagues about both the
>ICANN process and uses of the report for broader public interest activties.
>
>Harold Feld
>
>[log in to unmask] wrote:
>
>>The WHOIS Task Force 2 report is now published by the GNSO Council for
>>comment (until June 17th).  It is posted at
>>http://gnso.icann.org/issues/whois-privacy/TF2%20Initial%20Report3.pdf.
>>
>>Would anyone like to have a conference call to talk about the report
>>and great value of filing some short comments?
>>
>>Also:  comments on TF2 report go to
>>"[log in to unmask]"
>>The archive of comments for this report is available at:
>>http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/whois-tf2-report-comments.
>>
>>Kathy
>>\


--

-----------------------------------------------------------------
Frannie Wellings
Policy Analyst, Electronic Privacy Information Center
Coordinator, The Public Voice
1718 Connecticut Ave. N.W., Suite 200
Washington, D.C.  20009   USA
[log in to unmask]
+1 202 483 1140 extension 107 (telephone)
+1 202 483 1248 (fax)
http://www.epic.org
http://www.thepublicvoice.org
-----------------------------------------------------------------