I have some issues with the proposal, but they are more in the nature of
calrifications and tweaks. I totally agree with the strategy and the
policy principles behind it. I will express those concerns later. Here,
let me also respond to Danny.

>>> Harold Feld <[log in to unmask]> 12/7/2006 4:38:20 PM >>>
>The brilliance of the proposal is that it has given our side and our 
>sympathizers a concrete and real proposal to push back against the 
>parties opposing our interests.  This is critical as it allows us to 
>shift to a more proactive approach.

This is absolutely correct. There are serious dangers that the OPoC
proposal will be compromised in various ways. The ultimate decision lies
with the Board, not the GNSO Council. OPoC may or may not turn out to be
an acceptable compromise. We need to assert our "real" policy desires --
the business constituencies have not been bashful about doing that -- so
that they are considered and have the possibility to move the debate in
our direction. 

>You raise some legitimate concerns with regard to substance, 
>particularly the concern that registrars will have freedom to sell 
>the information.

There are already some restrictions on this in the ICANN contract, I
think. But how is this proposal different from the status quo or OPoC in
that regard? I think Danny is just off-base here. 

>Strategically, the situation has clearly 
>become one where there is a core group utterly unwilling to 
>compromise and willing to use every possible mechanism to recapture 
>the advantage. 

This is correct. Anyone who has been on these task forces for years
knows that. Danny's view that the "special circumstances" proposal
constitutes a compromise is flatly wrong. That proposal is so narrow and
requires individual registrants to jump through so many hoops that it
constitutes a completely unacceptable shift of the burden of proof.
Individuals are presumed to have no right to privacy and they have to
prove to a bunch of IP lawyers why their contact information should be
shielded. 

More concretely, this "compromise" Was issued just as consensus was
being reached on OPoC and was clearly designed to undermine the OPoC
momentum. It is a strategic ploy, not a serious proposal.

In general, Danny is putting forward a view that would find a more
welcome home in the business or IPR constituencies, not here. 

And let me once again clarify the situation regarding the policy
committee. The PC is a virtual entity within the NCUC. There is no
spearate mechanism for vetting policy proposals other than this list. So
when Robin puts a proposal on this list and asks for support she is
doing exactly what she is supposed to do.