Thanks, Chun! I think NCUC should publish a statement on this asap. (IP Justice will also publish a statement that other NGOs can sign-on if they wish). And I think NCUC should organize a letter writing campaign to GAC representatives - and work with other NGOs who work on online privacy rights to publicize the campaign. I don't think we can sit back and let many years of hard fought work to protect privacy be over-turned by a couple over-zealous members of GAC. I think we have to be vocal on this effort to undo the GNSO vote -- and I think we'll find many allies who will help us. Robin Chun Eung Hwi wrote: >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. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >>> >>> > > >