Hi Everyone -
I've created a page dedicated to WHOIS comments on our public voice
web site (www.thepublicvoice.org).
If you have a moment, go to
http://www.thepublicvoice.org/take_action/default.html
and take a look. I'm going to send out e-mail soliciting comments
for each TF and will use this page for their reference, so let me
know if you have any suggestions/modifications.
Chun, thank you for your thoughts regarding TF3. I very much agree
and would appreciate anyone's help with comments on the Registrar's
document. I'll send something soon.
Thank you, Frannie
>Dear Frannie Wellings and all others,
>
>I have just read the preliminary report of TF3.
>As you had implied, it is purely IPC's declaration rather than a report
>for public comment. My feeling is that ICANN seems to be a place where all
>people should be tested on how long all interest groups keep their
>position without any compromise and looking for an appropriate time
>to make big voice in taking chair or making draft document.
>
>As Thomas Roessler mentioned and Ross Rader reiterated, the best practice
>part has never reflected all prior inputs and outcomes come out throughout
>long discussion on this sensitive issue. Moreover, that part seems to be
>very offensive and too regulatory. I was shocked that the versification
>process of a domain name accuracy could be similar to being investigated
>due to some possible serious crime.
>
>Registrar's alternate text is very well worked out, although it still
>holds to impose some sanction on those registrants who intentionally deny
>to provide correct contact point information. I think we could advance
>further if we could successfully make out the corrected or commented
>version on Registrar's alternate text.
>
>Then, when I tried to make some comments, I could not find out where it
>could be done, and no comments at the designated URL. Has not yet opened
>the public comment period?
>
>Still, I have not yet read TF 1,2 preliminary reports. And its volume size
>is too thick. Anyhow, I believe Kathy and Milton could have done an
>excellent job.
>
>
>regards,
>
>Chun
>
>
>On Tue, 1 Jun 2004, Frannie Wellings wrote:
>
>> 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
>> -----------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>
>--
>------------------------------------------------------------
>Chun Eung Hwi
>General Secretary, PeaceNet | phone: (+82) 2-2166-2205
>Seoul Yangchun P.O.Box 81 | pcs: (+82) 019-259-2667
>Seoul, 158-600, Korea | eMail: [log in to unmask]
>------------------------------------------------------------
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------
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
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|
