Hi,
I participated last night in the WHOIS discussion. You may recall
that in November, Glen asked for constituency input on the RyC
recommendations concerning studies http://gnso.icann.org/drafts/gnso-
whois-study-recommendations-ryc-29oct08.pdf. That was the focus of
the call.
A few observations:
1. Basically the conversation was a step-by-step walk through of the
proposed studies and hypotheses, how people ranked them in terms of
prioritization and feasibility etc. Almost all if not everyone on
the call was from the US private sector, and the conversation was
fairly convivial since everyone who spoke save the registrars and
NCUC is on board with doing studies. What differences there were
within the group pertained to operational details.
2. Tim Ruiz asked how he is supposed to rank studies since the
registrars are opposed to doing them in the first place, and how this
oppositional perspective would be reflected in any proposal. I
expressed the same concerns, based on the replies I got in November
from Milton and Norbert to the effect that NCUC's stance was to
oppose studies and urge action, as well as on the NCUC reply to the
TF report http://gnso.icann.org/issues/whois-privacy/whois-services-
final-tf-report-12mar07.htm#_Toc161480292.
3. Avri said that constituencies who didn't support studies should
still fill in the questionnaire. We could just rank them all Low
Priority or say No Study Needed (I think that was the formulation,
can check). She asked that we also render judgments on the technical
feasibility of the studies, irrespective of whether we actually
supported doing them. We should do this before next Wednesday, when
a follow up call will be held. The questionnaire is at https://
st.icann.org/gnso-council/index.cgi?whois_discussion.
If you look at the doc you will note that thus far they have only
received replies from the RyC, IPC, and BC. They don't expect GAC to
bother, but hope that NCUC, RC, ALAC, and ISCPC will provide inputs.
I'm not entirely clear on why the NomCom would be doing this but
they're listed too. In any event, we might want to coordinate with
the RC and ALAC? If the poll ultimately reveals a sharp division
among multiple groups presumably it would be at least be harder to
justify moving forward, which the RyC, IPC and BC commentary seemed
to presume was a done deal. In recognition of potential splits, Avri
held out hope that at least the prioritization exercise could
identify potential studies that have no support and can be dropped
and maybe a few that some strongly support while others do not.
Whether this message could be conveyed in one unified motion is unclear.
4. Needless to say, we'd be in a stronger position to engage in this
process if there was coordination within NCUC and with like minded
types elsewhere, and if more of us are on the calls. Apparently we
can designate alternates if councilors can't make it (being a newbie,
I didn't know this), and indeed several of the most active
participants from supporting constituencies were not councilors.
Can we agree on how to proceed?
a. Rank all studies Low Priority, or No Study Needed? Differentiate
and maybe identify one or two as potentially desirable, to show
willingness to compromise?
b. In parallel, rank the studies' feasibility, irrespective of
whether we think they're worth doing?
c. Reach out to RC and ALAC, or don't bother and just do our bit?
Who would like to do the coordination and physical inputting of
responses?
Who would like to participate in the follow up call next Wednesday
17th, which I assume will be 18:00 UTC?
Thanks,
Bill
***********************************************************
William J. Drake
Senior Associate
Centre for International Governance
Graduate Institute of International and
Development Studies
Geneva, Switzerland
[log in to unmask]
New book: Governing Global Electronic Networks,
http://tinyurl.com/5mh9jj
***********************************************************
|
