Actually, based on your very good responses, I have not applied to be the NCSG representative to the Whois RT. I expressed interest but have not filed a formal application, mainly because with two other candidates I don't need to. I would rather support your application. I am asking these questions in order to develop a dialogue within NCSG about the purpose and objective of the RT. These things go better when more of us understand what is at stake, what is the process, who we have involved on our behalf. 

My experience on this issue is extensive. As Chair of NCUC back around 2000 I prioritized the issue. I was on the Council during, and represented NCUC on, the endless Whois/privacy Task Force that, around 2006, attempted to redefine the purpose of Whois. I have also researched and published, with Mawaki Chango, a historical and political analysis of the Whois issue, which I can send to anyone interested individually upon request. Along with Kathy Kleiman I programmed the Vancouver conference on the Whois issue which is where I believe we met. Lately I have also become somewhat involved in Whois discussions in the IP address context.

--MM

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Kim G. von Arx [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
> Sent: Sunday, July 11, 2010 1:30 PM
> To: Milton L Mueller
> Cc: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: [NCSG-NCUC-DISCUSS] candidates for review teams.
> 
> Milton:
> 
> I am not sure how to respond to your question as I know as much as you
> do about the purpose of the RT and the history of ICANN's WHOIS
> endeavors.  I agree that we need a clear understanding of the terms of
> reference of the WHOIS RT, nevertheless, I certainly believe that it is
> of utmost importance that we have strong a representative who
> understands the WHOIS debate and has participated in the WHOIS issue in
> one form or another to ensure a fair and equitable representation of all
> views concerned.
> 
> Let me turn the questions around (the ones you posed in this email and
> in your previous email) since you also suggested that you were
> interested in participating in the WHOIS RT, what are your views and
> what is your experience with the WHOIS debate at ICANN and elsewhere?  I
> am not married to being NCUC's representative for this RT as it is a
> fairly significant commitment and I would be more than happy to step
> aside for someone who would be more suitable.  I simply put my name
> forward because I thought I can add value to the endeavor because: (1) I
> care about this issue, (2) I have significant experience in the WHOIS
> review and stakeholder collaboration with respect to that topic, (3) I
> have the commitment to further this discussion to, hopefully, bring it
> to an eventual satisfactory and "speedy" (in ICANN terms) conclusion.
> 
> Kim
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On 11 Jul 2010, at 13:09, Milton L Mueller wrote:
> 
> > Kim,
> > Thanks for your detailed answer. Let me add some comments below.
> >
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >>
> >> I would be excited to take on the responsibilities to review, advise
> on,
> >> and assist in the implementation of a WHOIS policy that is mutually
> >> acceptable to all stakeholders of ICANN.  I am certainly aware that
> the
> >> views diverge widely, but I am confident that the review team, as a
> >> cohesive group, can reach a consensus that will appease all groups to
> a
> >> large extent.
> >
> > This is one of the interesting - and scary - things about the whole
> "review team" concept. As I have said in my analysis of the AoC, it
> reproduces the politics of ICANN and almost invites the review team to
> re-make whatever policy it is they are reviewing. Can you give me a
> better idea of what it is the RT actually is reviewing? And what effect
> its reviews might have? It is always been a bit odd that the U.S.
> government singled out Whois for a special review team.
> >
> >> Of course, no solution will be able to cater to
> >> everyone's needs and that, I would submit, is not the goal, but to
> find
> >> an equitable balance among the various views, needs, and desires.
> >
> > Here it sounds as if you think the RT will be making policy. I think
> we need a better understanding of what the purpose of this RT is.
> >
> > --MM