NCSG-DISCUSS Archives

NCSG-Discuss

NCSG-DISCUSS@LISTSERV.SYR.EDU

Options: Use Forum View

Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Subject:
From:
Frannie Wellings <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
Frannie Wellings <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Mon, 7 Jun 2004 17:40:45 -0400
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (204 lines)
Hi Everyone -

I've created a page dedicated to WHOIS comments on our public voice
web site (www.thepublicvoice.org).

If you have a moment, go to
http://www.thepublicvoice.org/take_action/default.html
and take a look.  I'm going to send out e-mail soliciting comments
for each TF and will use this page for their reference, so let me
know if you have any suggestions/modifications.

Chun, thank you for your thoughts regarding TF3. I very much agree
and would appreciate anyone's help with comments on the Registrar's
document.  I'll send something soon.

Thank you, Frannie





>Dear Frannie Wellings and all others,
>
>I have just read the preliminary report of TF3.
>As you had implied, it is purely IPC's declaration rather than a report
>for public comment. My feeling is that ICANN seems to be a place where all
>people should be tested on how long all interest groups keep their
>position without any compromise and looking for an appropriate time
>to make big voice in taking chair or making draft document.
>
>As Thomas Roessler mentioned and Ross Rader reiterated, the best practice
>part has never reflected all prior inputs and outcomes come out throughout
>long discussion on this sensitive issue. Moreover, that part seems to be
>very offensive and too regulatory. I was shocked that the versification
>process of a domain name accuracy could be similar to being investigated
>due to some possible serious crime.
>
>Registrar's alternate text is very well worked out, although it still
>holds to impose some sanction on those registrants who intentionally deny
>to provide correct contact point information. I think we could advance
>further if we could successfully make out the corrected or commented
>version on Registrar's alternate text.
>
>Then, when I tried to make some comments, I could not find out where it
>could be done, and no comments at the designated URL. Has not yet opened
>the public comment period?
>
>Still, I have not yet read TF 1,2 preliminary reports. And its volume size
>is too thick. Anyhow, I believe Kathy and Milton could have done an
>excellent job.
>
>
>regards,
>
>Chun
>
>
>On Tue, 1 Jun 2004, Frannie Wellings wrote:
>
>>  Harold, Kathy and all NCUC folks -
>>  I'm glad we're talking about outreach.  We (EPIC) are going to try
>>  and recruit public comment to these Task Forces through the GILC list
>>  (Global Internet Liberties Campaign), EDRi (European Digital Rights
>>  Initiative), TACD, the Privacy Coalition, and other lists/groups.
>>  We'll really need help getting comments submitted, especially in Task
>>  Force 3 (summary of TF 3 progress below).  Kathy, I would like to do
>>  a conference call.  Harold, if you or anyone else on the list has
>>  ideas for other groups to contact about this please let us know.
>>  Regarding TF3, I'm going to send to these lists the Preliminary
>>  Report and an alternative to the Best Practices section which was
>>  submitted by the Registrars constituency.  That alternative is still
>>  not as privacy friendly as we would like, but is much better than the
>>  one included in the Report.  I'm hoping we'll get a lot of comments
>>  submitted on that version, giving it some legitimacy and pulling the
>>  document as a whole to the left - or whatever radical side it may be
>>  :).  Our document isn't as long as TF2's, but I know they can be
>>  tedious, so we can draft some sample comments for people if that
>>  helps.    It is tough to get people interested in these detailed
>>  policy issues and tough to make it all understandable, though I think
>>  you're right Harold that this is an area people could be attracted to.
>>  Anyway, hope everyone's well.  - Frannie
>>
>>
>>  To update you on Task Force 3:
>>  Bottom line, our document stinks.  The report itself shows that we
>>  got no results to our surveys, and therefore no data to make any
>>  policy recommendations.  This was a good thing! However, at the last
>>  minute the IP constituency drafted a Best Practices section - we'd
>  > argued against it saying no data collection meant we were unable to
>>  recommend Best Practices. We voted on Thursday/Friday on this
>>  trickier part of the document, just the Best Practices section.  A
>>  rep from the IP constituency is chairing our task force and he really
>>  refused to take reasonable input to amend this document significantly
>>  before the vote.
>>  So, I'd been working with Ross Rader from the Registrars constituency
>>  to get an alternate document submitted for public comment.  We needed
>>  to vote down the IP document. We had the votes of the At-Large as
>>  well and just needed the Registries.  We thought we had the
>>  Registries vote - we were calling everyone we knew to try and sway
>>  that vote, but in the end they abstained from certain parts of the
>>  document, but voted yes on some points, unfortunately passing that
>>  draft as a whole for public comment.
>>  Now we're in a situation were we have to reframe this discussion and
>>  are going to rely heavily on public comment.  On our last TF call, I
>>  said that given this task force's reluctance to accept constituency
>>  reps input, I didn't see what would change in terms of adjusting the
>>  document as a response to the public comment.  What's resulted is
>>  that I'm in charge of reviewing, etc. all public comments and
>>  summarizing for our task force.  So... I really need many NCUC
>>  submissions.
>>  I'll send out to the lists above the text of the current best
>>  practices and the alternative document from the Registrars.
>>  Let me know what you think, but I think I'll see if we can get
>>  comments shooting down the current Best Practices section entirely
>>  and commenting on how we would like to change the registrars
>>  document.  If we work from that one, at least we have a couple of
>>  constituencies to support it, and possibly the Registries.
>>
>>  >>Whois Task Force 3 Preliminary report can be viewed here
>>  >>(alternative Best Practices section is near the end.
>>  >>http://gnso.icann.org/issues/whois-privacy/TF3PreliminaryWithRCMR1.pdf
>>  >>
>>  >>Comments for the Whois Task Force 3 Preliminary Report can be
>>submitted to:
>>  >>[log in to unmask]
>>  >>The archive of comments for this report is available at:
>>  http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/whois-tf3-report-comments.
>>
>>
>>  At 03:06 PM -0400 06.01.2004, Harold Feld wrote:
>>  >Kathy, my thanks for your tireless and excellent work on this issue.
>>  >
>>  >To the rest of us:
>>  >To what extent, if any, are the organizations in the NCUC reaching out
>>  >on this issue to other organizations?  This is an issue of enormous
>>  >public importance.  Organizations and individuals that generally do not
>>  >care about "DNS policy" or "Internet governance" may care about this.
>>  >In the United States in particular, this may have great value for
>>  >educating U.S. policymakers and Federal agencies that are pushing for
>>  >"thick" registries without consideration of the social cost.
>>  >
>>  >I hope we will all seek to spread word to our colleagues about both the
>>  >ICANN process and uses of the report for broader public interest activties.
>>  >
>>  >Harold Feld
>>  >
>>  >[log in to unmask] wrote:
>>  >
>>  >>The WHOIS Task Force 2 report is now published by the GNSO Council for
>>  >>comment (until June 17th).  It is posted at
>>  >>http://gnso.icann.org/issues/whois-privacy/TF2%20Initial%20Report3.pdf.
>>  >>
>>  >>Would anyone like to have a conference call to talk about the report
>>  >>and great value of filing some short comments?
>>  >>
>>  >>Also:  comments on TF2 report go to
>>  >>"[log in to unmask]"
>>  >>The archive of comments for this report is available at:
>>  >>http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/whois-tf2-report-comments.
>>  >>
>>  >>Kathy
>>  >>\
>>
>>
>>  --
>>
>>  -----------------------------------------------------------------
>>  Frannie Wellings
>>  Policy Analyst, Electronic Privacy Information Center
>>  Coordinator, The Public Voice
>>  1718 Connecticut Ave. N.W., Suite 200
>>  Washington, D.C.  20009   USA
>>  [log in to unmask]
>>  +1 202 483 1140 extension 107 (telephone)
>>  +1 202 483 1248 (fax)
>>  http://www.epic.org
>  > http://www.thepublicvoice.org
>>  -----------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>
>--
>------------------------------------------------------------
>Chun Eung Hwi
>General Secretary, PeaceNet | phone:     (+82)  2-2166-2205
>Seoul Yangchun P.O.Box 81   |   pcs:     (+82) 019-259-2667
>Seoul, 158-600, Korea      | eMail:   [log in to unmask]
>------------------------------------------------------------


--

-----------------------------------------------------------------
Frannie Wellings
Policy Analyst, Electronic Privacy Information Center
Coordinator, The Public Voice
1718 Connecticut Ave. N.W., Suite 200
Washington, D.C.  20009   USA
[log in to unmask]
+1 202 483 1140 extension 107 (telephone)
+1 202 483 1248 (fax)
http://www.epic.org
http://www.thepublicvoice.org
-----------------------------------------------------------------

ATOM RSS1 RSS2