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. >> >> >> > > >