Thanks, Chun!
I think NCUC should publish a statement on this asap. (IP Justice will
also publish a statement that other NGOs can sign-on if they wish).
And I think NCUC should organize a letter writing campaign to GAC
representatives - and work with other NGOs who work on online privacy
rights to publicize the campaign.
I don't think we can sit back and let many years of hard fought work to
protect privacy be over-turned by a couple over-zealous members of GAC.
I think we have to be vocal on this effort to undo the GNSO vote -- and
I think we'll find many allies who will help us.
Robin
Chun Eung Hwi wrote:
>Dear Robin,
>
>Suzanne Sene's message shows us their time frame as follows;
>
>"to meet the December deadline for gac plenary approval of the text, all
>gac members are requested to submit comments via the working group 1
>discus thread on whois according to the following timeline:
>
>October 13: submission of first round of comments
>
>October 27: revised text circulated
>
>November 2: submission of second round of comments
>
>November 27: final version of text circulated
>
>we will discuss the text during the working group 1 meeting in sao paulo
>on December 3, followed by discussion and adoption by the gac plenary."
>
>
>chun
>
>
>
>On Mon, 25 Sep 2006, Robin Gross wrote:
>
>
>
>>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.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>
>
>
|
