Hi Milton: I forgot to respond to your last question in the email, i.e., with respect the setting of policy by the RT. I believe a "review" should only be that, i.e, a review and nothing more and nothing less. This should include a multi-discplinary and interest group approach and should include a comparative view with other approaches around the world. It further should include recommendations for improvements which, again, should only be that - recommendations. Kim On 11 Jul 2010, at 13:09, Milton L Mueller wrote: > Kim, > Thanks for your detailed answer. Let me add some comments below. > >> -----Original Message----- >> >> I would be excited to take on the responsibilities to review, advise on, >> and assist in the implementation of a WHOIS policy that is mutually >> acceptable to all stakeholders of ICANN. I am certainly aware that the >> views diverge widely, but I am confident that the review team, as a >> cohesive group, can reach a consensus that will appease all groups to a >> large extent. > > This is one of the interesting - and scary - things about the whole "review team" concept. As I have said in my analysis of the AoC, it reproduces the politics of ICANN and almost invites the review team to re-make whatever policy it is they are reviewing. Can you give me a better idea of what it is the RT actually is reviewing? And what effect its reviews might have? It is always been a bit odd that the U.S. government singled out Whois for a special review team. > >> Of course, no solution will be able to cater to >> everyone's needs and that, I would submit, is not the goal, but to find >> an equitable balance among the various views, needs, and desires. > > Here it sounds as if you think the RT will be making policy. I think we need a better understanding of what the purpose of this RT is. > > --MM