I am still trying to get a response re funding. Admittedly, I am wrong when I generalize about funding from ICANN. And the application fees from the few members of the constituency cannot account for the NCUC funds discussed in email strings such as the following. What is the funding offered by the GNSO or any other organization? Can someone tell me where these records are on the web page? Another P.R. support request -- EC members take note Another P.R. support request -- EC members take note (30 lines) From: Milton Mueller <[log in to unmask]> Date: Sun, 3 Jun 2007 00:25:19 -0400 Re: Another P.R. support request -- EC members take note (40 lines) From: Marcelo Fernandes Costa <[log in to unmask]> Date: Sun, 3 Jun 2007 10:20:48 -0300 Re: Another P.R. support request -- EC members take note (54 lines) From: Robert Guerra <[log in to unmask]> Date: Sun, 3 Jun 2007 11:36:01 -0400 Re: Another P.R. support request -- EC members take note (30 lines) From: Horacio T. Cadiz <[log in to unmask]> Date: Wed, 6 Jun 2007 11:24:01 +0800 Re: Another P.R. support request -- EC members take note (45 lines) From: Georg C. F. Greve <[log in to unmask]> Date: Thu, 7 Jun 2007 12:56:34 +0530 Cheryl B. Preston Edwin M. Thomas Professor of Law J. Reuben Clark Law School Brigham Young University 424 JRCB Provo, UT 84602 (801) 422-2312 [log in to unmask] >>> Dan Krimm <[log in to unmask]> 10/28/2007 4:16 pm >>> At 3:09 PM -0600 10/28/07, Cheryl Preston wrote: >BUT, I currently see no hope that the global consensus is going to reach >total abandonment of WHOIS without replacing it with something that >allows, upon service of an appropriate court order or in compliance with >treaty rights or otherwise, some mechanism whereby those to whom ICANN and >IANA (and their contractually empowered, substructure agents) have granted >power to access to the root can be held responsible for seriously illegal >activity based on international law standards. Certainly, and as I understand it (and certainly in my own personal case) NCUC's support of motion #3 is not intended to just leave it at that, but rather to motivate a return to negotiations on a more equal basis, where all parties will have an incentive to deliberate in good faith. The point of sunsetting the status quo arrangements for Whois is not to permanently abandon it, but rather to create the negotiating environment for a more properly balanced solution where justified access to identifying information is granted in specific cases to specific agents (and abuse of that access is punished) and personal privacy of natural-person registrants is protected as a default. If anti-privacy interests come into negotiations with everything they want, and the only possible outcome of negotiation is for them to lose something, there is utterly no incentive for them to negotiate in good faith. They may try to finesse their rhetoric in a way so as to indicate an abstract consideration of privacy concerns, but when push comes to shove and the final specific and detailed result is defined, they will not budge. Expiring the Whois status quo is not the end, it is intended as a new beginning. Sometimes you have to take a step back (and "over") in order to avoid an obstruction from taking additional steps forward. If the status quo cannot serve as a platform to move forward (as experience with this year's Whois Working Group demonstrated pretty well), then it is only an obstruction. Dan