As to their motivations, they ultimately must speak for themselves.  As to
their identification, they are identified by their public agendas and
positions.

In this particular GNSO context the IPC and BC are the torchbearers, with
some additional ("advisory") input from GAC.  A lot of this is apparently
driven by trademark and copyright maximalism (in the case of IPC and BC),
which I find fundamentally abusive in an "information society" (understand
that I own several copyrights and a trademark myself, so I feel I can speak
as a legitimate IP owner -- I am a proponent of "optimalism" in IP policy,
and the victory of IP maximalism is a frightening prospect to me).

As for GAC, it reflects the full complexity and intractability of
international dynamics, and the existence of authoritarian, repressive
governments creates a threat to allow an unwarranted global veto in any
effort to negotiate a global consensus.

In both cases, the apparent motivation is the unbalanced consolidation of
elite power (whether public or private) over the propagation of
information, for narrow advantage.

Generally, one must acknowledge the legitimate variation of cultural values
across (and within) societies, and the existence of communities and
individuals that wish not only to protect themselves from the values of
others (a perfectly justified position of democratic self-determination),
but to pro-actively impose their values on others (an unjustified position
of elite oppression).

Figuring out the proper balance for local variation in the context of a
global platform such as the Internet is not automatic, as we all have
instincts to try to convince others that our own values are "correct".
Nevertheless, finding such balance is critical.  My position, and that of
many others, is that control should be moved as far out to the "edges" as
possible.  Empower users, not elites.

Dan



At 1:56 PM -0600 10/29/07, Cheryl Preston wrote:
>You make many good points.  I would like to continue the discussion about
>what the right balance would be.  One question: in your view, who are the
>"anti-privacy" interests and what are their motivations?
>
>Cheryl B. Preston
>Edwin M. Thomas
>Professor of Law
>J. Reuben Clark Law School
>Brigham Young University
>424 JRCB
>Provo, UT 84602
>(801) 422-2312
>[log in to unmask]
>
>>>> Dan Krimm <[log in to unmask]> 10/28/2007 4:16 pm >>>
>At 3:09 PM -0600 10/28/07, Cheryl Preston wrote:
>
>>BUT, I currently see no hope that the global consensus is going to reach
>>total abandonment of WHOIS without replacing it with something that
>>allows, upon service of an appropriate court order or in compliance with
>>treaty rights or otherwise, some mechanism whereby those to whom ICANN and
>>IANA (and their contractually empowered, substructure agents) have granted
>>power to access to the root can be held responsible for seriously illegal
>>activity based on international law standards.
>
>
>
>Certainly, and as I understand it (and certainly in my own personal case)
>NCUC's support of motion #3 is not intended to just leave it at that, but
>rather to motivate a return to negotiations on a more equal basis, where
>all parties will have an incentive to deliberate in good faith.
>
>The point of sunsetting the status quo arrangements for Whois is not to
>permanently abandon it, but rather to create the negotiating environment
>for a more properly balanced solution where justified access to identifying
>information is granted in specific cases to specific agents (and abuse of
>that access is punished) and personal privacy of natural-person registrants
>is protected as a default.
>
>If anti-privacy interests come into negotiations with everything they want,
>and the only possible outcome of negotiation is for them to lose something,
>there is utterly no incentive for them to negotiate in good faith.  They
>may try to finesse their rhetoric in a way so as to indicate an abstract
>consideration of privacy concerns, but when push comes to shove and the
>final specific and detailed result is defined, they will not budge.
>
>Expiring the Whois status quo is not the end, it is intended as a new
>beginning.  Sometimes you have to take a step back (and "over") in order to
>avoid an obstruction from taking additional steps forward.  If the status
>quo cannot serve as a platform to move forward (as experience with this
>year's Whois Working Group demonstrated pretty well), then it is only an
>obstruction.
>
>Dan