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. 
>>
>>    
>>
>
>  
>