Danny, actually this position was already known in the last GAC meeting, and so made public -- no news here, they are just reaffirming it in their draft, so we pretty much should expect this to be one of the main positions to be voted by the GAC. I would handle it as far as our advocacy goes as a publicly known proposal. --c.a. Danny Younger wrote: > Robin, > > With all due respect, you are responding to a document > that hasn't been formally released for publication by > the GAC. > > If your organization wishes to express its views on > the basis of an unratified working group initiative, > you are indeed at liberty to write to whomever you > choose in the pursuit of democratic participation, but > I would tend to regard such a reaction as premature > and as one that takes a focus away from more > productive pursuits. > > I would rather see the organizational members of this > constituency focus on developing a model of WHOIS that > we can endorse and that can ultimately be accepted by > members of the ICANN Board. > > While the GAC has a Working Group on WHOIS policy, > where is the NCUC working group? One of our WHOIS > Task Force representatives has retired without being > replaced, while our other representatives seem to be > "missing in action" as reflected by their > non-participation on several recent WHOIS TF > teleconferences. > > As a constituency we have work to do -- that's why > we're here. A new WHOIS will not be achieved if we > don't act as a group to indicate precisely which data > fields we are prepared to accept for public display. > > I had earlier posted some questions regarding views on > the tiered access WHOIS as utilized by the .name > registry, and on other matters. Unless we begin to > fully discuss these issues and clearly articulate our > vision of how a future WHOIS will look and operate, we > will likely continue to be stuck with the status quo. > > Best wishes, > Danny > > > --- Robin Gross <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > >> I don't consider citizens expressing their views to >> their governmental >> representatives on policy matters as "meddling". >> >> I tend to think of it as democratic participation. >> >> Robin >> >> >> >> Danny Younger wrote: >> >>> Milton, >>> >>> I think that you are overreacting. This is not a >> case >>> of two govts working in private and then declaring >>> what is "public policy". >>> >>> Suzanne Sene functions as the convenor of the GAC >>> working group on WHOIS. That working group >> (probably >>> more than two members) agreed on text drafted by >> the >>> Australian GAC contingent. The draft -- let me >> repeat >>> -- draft -- has now been forwarded to the entirety >> of >>> the GAC membership for a preliminary round of >>> comments. >>> >>> 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, >>> revisions, or amendments. What ultimately emerges >> may >>> bear little similarity to this initial text. >>> >>> 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. >>> >>> Would you want the GAC or any other constituent >> body >>> engaging in a letter writing campaign to the NCUC? >>> Would you like it if external interests attempted >> to >>> apply pressure on select NCUC members in order to >>> achieve a certain result? >>> >>> Let the GAC do whatever it needs to do. 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. >>> >>> It's easy enough to complain that what others have >>> proposed runs counter to our interests... but at >> the >>> end of the day such whining fails to serve our >> needs >>> if a counter-proposal is not on the table. >>> >>> If this constituency is serious about the future of >>> WHOIS policy, then we have a duty to present an >>> alternative model and to make the case for such a >>> model. >>> >>> I look forward to discussion within the >> constituency >>> on what a future WHOIS should look like. >>> >>> best wishes, >>> Danny >>> >>> --- Milton Mueller <[log in to unmask]> wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>>> Remember the issue is not just Whois, as importqnt >>>> as that is. It is >>>> also the farcical US puppet institution that >>>> degrades the UN and then >>>> attempts to let two govts working in private >> declare >>>> what is "public >>>> policy" for the entire world. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> __________________________________________________ >>> Do You Yahoo!? >>> Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam >> protection around >>> http://mail.yahoo.com >>> >>> > > > __________________________________________________ > Do You Yahoo!? > Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around > http://mail.yahoo.com > > -- Carlos A. Afonso diretor de planejamento Rits - Rede de Informações para o Terceiro Setor *************************************************************** Projeto Sacix - Apoio técnico a iniciativas de inclusão digital com software livre, mantido pela Rits em colaboração com o Coletivo Digital. Para mais informações: www.sacix.org.br www.rits.org.br www.coletivodigital.org.br ***************************************************************