Danny,

Abstractly or idealistically speaking, you may have a point, but I'm
afraid you're completely missing it as a member of this constituency
and taking into account our actual interactions with the adverse
parties in this debate. The fact is OpoC or any tired access proposal
is a big compromise that has been embraced, I think, by NCUC.That was
not our initial ground or desire, neither logically nor
chronologically.

By coming up with new proposals after new proposals, the adverse
party wants, among other things, to demonstrate what they seem to
have succeeded with you: that it is the privacy party that does not
want to compromise. By constantly throwing in so-called
new/alternate/compromise proposals, they are unilaterally redefining
the terms of the game. And they have done this before: a "new"
definition of WHOIS purpose had been promised and re-crafted several
times up to the eve of the GNSO council taking vote on this
definition. While the proposed two definitions were the ultimate
results of years of discussion and negotiation between the different
views among all stakeholders. They were part of that process; and all
of a sudden they want to tell us they have been striken by a revealed
definition that will unite us all.

You certainly have understood the argument of the strategic value of
the current draft proposal, as pointed out by Harold, but for reasons
that escape my understanding, you've obviously chosen to argue as if
you have not. The point is not that we demand and expect ICANN to
eventually adopt this specific policy proposal. The point is, at
least, to show and remind the community that that is our desired
outcome, based on our values and principles. And that if we accept to
even discuss anything like OPoC, this must not be taken for granted
but as an evidence of our good faith and good will to compromise with
the other other stakeholders in the overall, common, achievable best
interest of all. 

The "in-your-face posturing" has been the common lot of the adverse
party so far, along with pressure and intimidation. In Marrakesh,
this even inspired a motion on the GNSO council which, in its initial
wording, required the council members who voted for the adopted
definition to clarify/justify their reasons for doing so (someone
told me it reminded him of the self-criticism exercise imposed on
those who were suspected to be critical of the system, in the old
days of the Soviet Union.) I fought against such motion, but it was
not withdrawn; just improved to request the councillors who are
willing to provide a clarification for their vote to do so. But the
"positive manoeuver" (coming up with "new" proposals) leading to
diversion is apparently still on. 

Maybe it was just time for us to understand and craft a strategy that
can effectively respond to that "in-your-face posturing" and
diversion strategy, if not align on the same. Sorry for being long --
I probably don't master the English language enough to be more
succinct.

Regards,

Mawaki 


--- Danny Younger <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> We are working in a policy environment with a number
> of other constituencies that don't share our views. 
> This proposal does nothing to bridge the gap between
> our respective positions.  It is not based on a
> good-faith attempt to engender adoption by seeking
> mutual consensus between parties; rather, it is
> nothing more than in-your-face posturing that will
> achieve nothing more than further prolonging the
> status quo.
> 
> Rallying behind this particular flag will find you
> waging the WHOIS battle for yet another decade instead
> of settling the issue in a manner that the entirety of
> the ICANN community can live with.
> 
> If you honestly believe that the ICANN Board will
> adopt this approach over the opposition of the BC, the
> ISPs, the IPC, the GAC and the USG, (not to mention
> the opposition of organizations like the International
> Red Cross and others), then I think you have hit a new
> level of foolishness.
> 
> This proposal should be retired in favor of a more
> pragmatic approach.
> 
> 
>  
>
____________________________________________________________________________________
> Need a quick answer? Get one in minutes from people who know.
> Ask your question on www.Answers.yahoo.com
> 



 
____________________________________________________________________________________
Want to start your own business?
Learn how on Yahoo! Small Business.
http://smallbusiness.yahoo.com/r-index