Hello,
Is anyone else planning on being on the WHOIS call that commences in less than an hour, 18:00 UTC?
Absent any feedback, I guess all I can say on the call is that NCUC needs more time. Unless we can get some quick consensus on one of the more obvious options, e.g.
1. We could just say no to everything and score all proposed studies as zero. Certainly the path of least resistance. It sort of discounts our view on any given item and takes us out of the conversation (at least as a partner willing to compromise etc) while the GAC and industry factions are thinking full speed ahead and debating the relevant merits and technical feasibility of different studies/hypotheses etc., but we can do that if people want.
2. We could instead express concern about studies as delaying tactics but also a willingness to support those proposed studies that would seem friendly to noncommercial concerns, for example
Public access to WHOIS data is responsible for a material
number of cases of misuse that have caused harm to
natural persons whose registrations do not have a
2008/msg00001.html
There are significant abuses caused by public display of
Whois. Significant abuses would include use of WHOIS
data in spam generation, abuse of personal data, loss of
reputation or identity theft, security costs and loss of data
(note – definition is from GAC recommendation 2).
2008/msg00026.html
and so on...I don't know who actually suggested these in the first place, the identities in the forum are redacted for privacy, but a priori I'd have guessed that such wording came from civil society types...could be wrong...
Personally, since GAC and 3 industry sectors want to press ahead, I'd think pushing for studies like the above might be better than just saying nyet to everything, but I will represent whatever the community view is, just need to know. In the meanwhile, absent any clear guidance, I'll punt and say we need more time.
Bill
On Dec 16, 2008, at 3:08 PM, William Drake wrote:
Hi,
I believe tomorrow there is another WHOIS call. Avri helpfully suggested changing the ranking system to numeric, which will better reflect constituency views (e.g. NCUC could rank studies as 0 rather than low priority) and allow more precise aggregation of results. But it's a bit hard to numerically express constituency views without having heard what they are, so any actionable feedback would be appreciated.
If no more precise input is forthcoming, shall I just ask that zeros be recorded for our priority assessment of each proposed study, and that our feasibility assessments be left blank? A bit lame, but maybe better than not responding at all...
Thanks,
Bill
On Dec 12, 2008, at 10:13 AM, Milton L Mueller wrote:
Thanks, Bill for this great report and set of action items.
Can we agree on how to proceed?
a. Rank all studies Low Priority, or No Study Needed? Differentiate and maybe identify one or two as potentially desirable, to show willingness to compromise?
Perfect.
- Reach out to RC and ALAC, or don't bother and just do our bit?
If you have time, definitely reach out to RrC; ALAC will be more difficult because they have “processes” to follow, but maybe our new ALAC liaison could help us out here.
Who would like to do the coordination and physical inputting of responses?
Due to my need to travel on the early morning (European time) of the 18th, I cannot volunteer to do this. I would otherwise. Robin?
***********************************************************
William J. Drake
Senior Associate
Centre for International Governance
Graduate Institute of International and
Development Studies
Geneva, Switzerland
New book: Governing Global Electronic Networks,
***********************************************************
***********************************************************
William J. Drake
Senior Associate
Centre for International Governance
Graduate Institute of International and
Development Studies
Geneva, Switzerland
New book: Governing Global Electronic Networks,
***********************************************************