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. > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > > -- ------------------------------------------------------------ Chun Eung Hwi General Secretary, PeaceNet | fax: (+82) 2-2649-2624 Seoul Yangchun P.O.Box 81 | pcs: (+82) 19-259-2667 Seoul, 158-600, Korea | eMail: [log in to unmask] ------------------------------------------------------------