Maria and Jordyn:

As you made clear to us at the close of the call, the Task Force is
over. It's up to Maria to finish the report with the minor modifications
we discussed. And the only issues she and you can take into
consideration are the positions and statements made during and before
the call where we deliberated on the final report. This is a procedural
requirement. ICANN will never work if people can reopen issues after the
process dealing with them is closed.

Thus I have a procedural objection to Simon's proposal. If the registry
constitency wants to completely change its position (obviously in
response to extramural political pressure and God only knows what kind
of deal or bribe) the sad fact is that it's simply too late for that
change to be reflected in this report.

The Report is finished -- or at least it would be, in any well-run
organization and any community where people have some standards of
integrity. That of course doesn't prevent the RyC from pursuing its deal
with the devil in other forums. But at least let's maintain the
integrity of the TF process.

Simon: Let me put before you some of the statements of your own
constituency. How are we supposed to reconcile this statement from your
official constituency postion::

"As stated above, RyC generally supports the underlying concepts of the
OPoC proposal."

with the statement in his current email:

"I thus must ask that the Registry Constituency be removed from the
list of
those who are 'broadly' in support of Opoc..."

The two statements are in direct contradiction. And yet the first
statement was a product of a careful and lengthy process and stood in
place for many months, while the second is a furtive, incoherent and
desperately last minute intervention of unkown motives and questionable
authenticity. 

More to the point, why did the registry constituency allow this report,
which has listed RyC as a supporter of OPoC, to stand unchanged and
unchallenged for nearly three months? Why did it not raise the concerns
on the last call, or during the months and months of endless
teleconferences that preceded it? How legitimate is it, how seriously
can this manuever be taken? I would suggest, not at all. 

The RyC statement -- the real one, not this pathetic manuever of an
email -- has this to say about delaying tactics:

"Although this task force was convened in February 2005, it is the
outgrowth of proceedings that began in 2001, nearly six years ago. It is
a sad commentary on the processes of the GNSO and its task forces that
it has taken over six years to arrive at what are essentially two simple
conclusions..." 

"The lofty goal of policy making by consensus has been subverted by
constituencies that have a vested interested in preservation of the
status quo in the WHOIS. The proceedings of this task force and its
predecessors have dragged on over the years mainly because of procedural
maneuvering with little or no connection to the substantive issues." 

Simon, I suggest that you read that part of your statement again, and
ask yourself: is this effort of yours not perpetuating that problem? Is
it not deliberately intended to destroy the products of this task
force's work? And if so, hasn't someone in your own constituency already
blown the whistle on you? 

>>> "Simon Sheard" <[log in to unmask]> 3/2/2007 3:01:40 AM >>>

Jordyn, Maria, all,

Following continued discussions within the Registry Constituency I
must
request an amendment be made to the Executive Summary report.

In our written statement (which is section 13.4 in my copy but part of
section 11? Presumably a bug?) we did express support for the Opoc
proposal
but felt that it did not go nearly far enough when it came to
addressing the
question of access to data by parties having legitimate needs for such
access. We also highlighted the necessity of Sponsored Registries to be
able
to determine the eligibility of registration applicants themselves
something
which is not adequately covered by the Opoc proposal either.

It is thus the majority view of the Registry Constituency that to
include us
in the Executive Summary in a list of Constituencies who 'broadly'
support
Opoc is misleading.

in the "Summary of the Task
Force Policy Recommendation to the GNSO Council" section in the
Executive
Summary.

For the avoidance of doubt can I also ask, if a paragraph is included
along
the lines that Milton has proposed, that the three Constituencies in
support
of the Special Circumstances Proposal are actually named.

Finally, we would like to request that a new paragraph be added, after
Milton's paragraph, as follows:

"While the Registry Constituency prefers the Opoc solution to the
Special
Circumstances proposal it is unable to give it's support at this time
since
it does not adequately address the question of access to data by
parties,
such as law enforcement, who have legitimate needs for such access, nor
does
it adequately deal with the issue that Sponsored Registries must be
able to
determine certain eligibility requirements themselves."

Please accept my apologies for the delay in communicating this to the
Taskforce but I have had difficulties in contacting members of the
Registry
Constituency in the last few days.

Sincerely

Simon Sheard
On Behalf of the Registry Constituency