Hi Milton: 

I forgot to respond to your last question in the email, i.e., with respect the setting of policy by the RT.  I believe a "review" should only be that, i.e, a review and nothing more and nothing less.  This should include a multi-discplinary and interest group approach and should include a comparative view with other approaches around the world.  It further should include recommendations for improvements which, again, should only be that - recommendations. 

Kim 




On 11 Jul 2010, at 13:09, Milton L Mueller wrote:

> Kim,
> Thanks for your detailed answer. Let me add some comments below.
> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> 
>> I would be excited to take on the responsibilities to review, advise on,
>> and assist in the implementation of a WHOIS policy that is mutually
>> acceptable to all stakeholders of ICANN.  I am certainly aware that the
>> views diverge widely, but I am confident that the review team, as a
>> cohesive group, can reach a consensus that will appease all groups to a
>> large extent.
> 
> This is one of the interesting - and scary - things about the whole "review team" concept. As I have said in my analysis of the AoC, it reproduces the politics of ICANN and almost invites the review team to re-make whatever policy it is they are reviewing. Can you give me a better idea of what it is the RT actually is reviewing? And what effect its reviews might have? It is always been a bit odd that the U.S. government singled out Whois for a special review team. 
> 
>> Of course, no solution will be able to cater to
>> everyone's needs and that, I would submit, is not the goal, but to find
>> an equitable balance among the various views, needs, and desires.
> 
> Here it sounds as if you think the RT will be making policy. I think we need a better understanding of what the purpose of this RT is. 
> 
> --MM