[bc-gnso] BC Members Comments at the mike in the Public Forum in Prague - WHOIS

["Chris Chaplow" <chris@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

BC Members Comments at the mike in the Public Forum in Prague    28th June
2012.

Whois review team final report

 

 

>> ELISA COOPER:  I'M WITH THE BUSINESS CONSTITUENCY, AND THE BUSINESS
CONSTITUENCY BROADLY SUPPORTED THE 16 RECOMMENDATIONS MADE BY THE WHOIS
POLICY REVIEW TEAM. WE FEEL VERY STRONGLY THAT ENSURING THE ACCURACY AND
RELY BUILT OF WHOIS IS OF UTMOST CONCERN AND IN PARTICULAR OF THE 16
RECOMMENDATIONS, THERE ARE SORT OF THREE AREAS WHICH WE FEEL VERY STRONGLY
ABOUT. ONE OF THOSE AREAS IS THAT WHOIS DOES BECOME A STRATEGIC PRIORITY FOR
THE ORGANIZATION. THE SECOND IS THAT ANY OF THE RECOMMENDATIONS THAT ASSURE
THE ACCURACY OF WHOIS IS SOMETHING THAT WE FEEL STRONGLY ABOUT. 
AND THE FINAL AREA WHICH WE FEEL STRONGLY ABOUT IS THAT THERE ARE
REQUIREMENTS TO FIND FOR PROXY AND SERVICE PROVIDERS. 
WE ALSO FEEL STRONGLY THAT THE BOARD ENSURES THAT THERE ARE THE NECESSARY
RESOURCES AND BUDGETS ALLOCATED TO MAKING SURE THAT THESE REQUIREMENTS ARE
IMPLEMENTED. THANK YOU. 



>>STEVE CROCKER: THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

 

 

 

>>STEVE DelBIANCO: DELL STEVE DelBIANCO. CONSCIOUSNESS OF RISKS TO
INDIVIDUALS AND THAT MOTIVATED THE CHAIRMAN TO CONTRAST THE TWO VIEWS AND
WEIGH THEM. I WANTED TO REMIND EVERYONE IN THE NEXT COUPLE OF MONTHS AS YOU
CONSIDER WHAT TO DO WITH THE WHOIS RECOMMENDATIONS YOU DON'T HAVE TO JUST
WEIGH VIEWS. YOU CAN ACTUALLY LOOK AT SOME FACTS BECAUSE GONZALES WITH
SUPPORT OF THE BOARD HAS COMMISSIONED FOUR STUDIES SO THAT WE CAN DO
FACT-BASED POLICYMAKING ON WHOIS. AND IN FACT, ONE OF TEZ STUDIES WHICH
RESULTS SHOULD BE IN IN THE NEXT THREE MONTHS IS A STUDY OF WHETHER THERE
ARE ABUSES TO INDIVIDUALS THAT ARISE AS A RESULT OF THEIR INFORMATION BEING
AVAILABLE IN WHOIS. SO IT'S TO THE VERY QUESTION THAT WAS BROUGHT UP. IT'S
NOT JUST ABOUT VIEWS. SOME OF IT NEEDS TO BE ABOUT FACTS. THERE ARE THREE
OTHER STUDIES IN WHOIS THAT WILL COME IN THE NEXT SIX MONTHS THAT ALSO SPEAK
TO THE USE OF PRIVACY AND PROXY SERVICES BY INDIVIDUALS AS WELL AS WHETHER
THE PRIVACY, PROXY PROVIDERS ARE ADEQUATELY REVEALING. WE SPENT COUNTLESS
HOURS DESIGNING THE STUDIES. SO WEIGHTED THE VIEWS BUT GIVE A LOT MORE
WEIGHT TO THE FACTS, PLEASE. 



>>STEVE CROCKER: I LIKE THAT IDEA. THERE WAS A COMMENT IN A REPORT, A U.S.
GOVERNMENT REPORT SEVERAL YEARS AGO THAT WHOIS DIDN'T CONTRIBUTE TO SPAM. IN
SSAC WE TOOK THAT UP AND RAN A CONTROLLED EXPERIMENT WITH FAIRLY DRAMATIC
RESULTS PUBLISHED IN A SAC DOCUMENT ONLINE NOW. HAS BEEN AVAILABLE FOR
SEVERAL YEARS. SO I THINK THAT'S ANOTHER THING THAT WOULD CONTRIBUTE AS
WELL. THANK YOU. 



 

>>MARILYN CADE: THANK YOU. MY NAME IS MARILYN CADE. I'M THE CHAIRMAN OF THE
BUSINESS CONSTITUENCY AND I'M CONTINUING A STATEMENT THAT WAS MADE EARLIER
FROM THE BUSINESS CONSTITUENCY RELATED TO WHOIS. 
OUR PREVIOUS SPEAKER PROVIDED OUR VIEWS ON THE -- THE RECOMMENDATIONS IN THE
WHOIS REVIEW TEAM. MY COMMENTS ARE PROVIDED TO EXPLAIN OUR VIEW ABOUT THE
NATURE AND THE ROLE OF THE VIEW TEAMS. MANY PEOPLE IN THE COMMUNITY ARE NOT
AWARE THAT THE REVIEW TEAMS ARE ESTABLISHED AS A RESULT OF THE AFFIRMATION
OF COMMITMENTS. BUT THERE ARE FOUR OF THEM AND THAT THEY DO COME WITH
TIMELINES THAT ARE BUILT IN. THEY ARE NOT AWARE THAT THE COMMUNITY SELECTS
REPRESENTATIVES WHO ARE THEN APPOINTED AND THEN INDEPENDENT EXPERTS ARE
APPOINTED THROUGH A PROCESS THAT INVOLVES THE CEO/PRESIDENT OF ICANN AND THE
GAC CHAIR. SO THE STANDING OF THE REVIEW TEAMS IS SOMEWHAT UNIQUE. IT HAS
ASSIGNED ICANN STAFF AND THE ABILITY TO USE OUTSIDE RESOURCES. IT ALSO
ENGAGES IN EXTENSIVE CONSULTATION AS VARIOUS STAGES. IT'S OUR VIEW THAT THE
RECOMMENDATIONS THAT COME FROM THE REVIEW TEAM PROCESS DO HAVE UNIQUE STATUS
COMPARED TO OTHER RECOMMENDATIONS. WE EXPECT THESE RECOMMENDATIONS TO BE
FULLY IMPLEMENTED WITHIN THE TIME FRAME. IT'S OUR UNDERSTANDING THAT THERE
WILL NOW BE A FEASIBILITY ASSESSMENT DONE BY THE STAFF AND WE WOULD LIKE TO
ASK A QUESTION. WILL THE FEASABILITY STUDY ASSUME THAT THE RECOMMENDATION
SHOULD BE IMPLEMENTED OR WILL THE FEASIBILITY STUDY QUESTION WHETHER THEY
SHOULD? AND WHEN THE RECOMMENDATIONS GO TO THE COUNCIL FROM THE BOARD, IF
ANY DO, WILL THERE BE AN ASSUMPTION THAT THE PDPS ARE ABOUT IMPLEMENTATION
AND NOT ABOUT REASSESSING THE RECOMMENDATIONS? 



>>STEVE CROCKER: THANK YOU VERY MUCH. SO JUST TO TAKE PIECES OF THIS IN
PARTICULAR ORDER, THE FEASIBILITY IS FEASIBILITY. THAT RECOMMENDATION PRO OR
CON, IT'S DELIBERATELY FRAMED AS ASSUME THAT IT'S GOING TO BE IMPLEMENTED OR
IF YOU'RE ASKED TO IMPLEMENT IT AND TELL US WHAT THE CONSEQUENCES ARE, CAN
IT BE IMPLEMENTED, DO YOU KNOW HOW, WHAT WOULD YOU DO IF YOU GOT THIS AS AN
ORDER, SAY. I LISTENED VERY CLOSELY TO THEIR CHOICE OF WORDS, AND THE KEY
WORD THAT I HEARD WAS THAT THESE REVIEWS HAVE UNIQUE STATUS. AND I WOULD
AGREE WITH THAT. BUT NOT TO GET INTO UNINTENTIONAL IRONY OR HUMOR, IT'S A
QUESTION OF WHAT "UNIQUE" MEANS. UNIQUE DOES NOT NECESSARILY, TO MY
VOCABULARY, MEAN THAT IT HAS AUTOMATIC OR -- THERE'S PROBABLY BETTER WORDS,
THAT THAT BECOMES LAW JUST BECAUSE IT COMES OUT OF THE REVIEW TEAM. THAT
WOULD BE A TRANSFER OF AUTHORITY AND RESPONSIBILITY THAT I THINK IT WAS --
IS REALLY OUTSIDE OF THE STRUCTURE AND WHAT'S APPROPRIATE. SO THERE IS A
NECESSARY STEP WITH A STRONG WEIGHT GIVEN TO THE UNIQUE ROLE OF THESE
REVIEWS. AND A QUITE OBVIOUS REQUIREMENT THAT SHOULD WE CHOOSE NOT TO ACCEPT
ONE OR MORE OF THE RECOMMENDATIONS OR TO MODIFY THEM THEN THE BURDEN IS ON
US TO EXPLAIN WHY AND TO MAKE THAT A COMPELLING ARGUMENT. AND I SAY ALL OF
THAT WITHOUT HAVING A PRECONCEPTION IN MY MIND ABOUT ANY OF THESE BECAUSE I
HAVEN'T HAD TIME TO SIT DOWN AND READ IT. BUT FROM A PROCESS POINTED OF VIEW
AND THESE ARE VIEWS FORMED NOT IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE WHOIS IN PARTICULAR,
BUT WATCHING NOT ONLY THESE REVIEWS BUT EXPERT REPORTS OVER A LONG PERIOD OF
TIME, THERE IS A NECESSARY COMPONENT OF HAVING SOME CHECK AND BALANCE AND
SOME TENSIONS IN THIS PROCESS. SUBJECT PERHAPS TO A LONGER DISCUSSION, BUT I
WANTED TO BE AS CLEAR AS I CAN ABOUT THIS. 



>>MARILYN CADE: THANK YOU. THEN I THINK IT'S -- IT'S MARILYN CADE AGAIN. I
THINK IT'S IMPORTANT FOR ME TO REFLECT BACK TO YOU OUR UNDERSTANDING AS THE
BC. THIS REVIEW TEAM SELECTED A DECISIONAL PROCESS TO WORK BY CONSENSUS. IT
WOULD BE IN OUR VIEW BY DOING THAT THEY PERHAPS NEGOTIATED AWAY SOME
RECOMMENDATIONS WHICH FULL AGREEMENT COULD NOT BE GAINED ON. THEY AGREED TO
WORK BY CONSENSUS. AND I WOULD JUST SAY THAT THEY'RE GOING TO BE A SERIES OF
REVIEW TEAMS AS WE ALL KNOW AND THEY'RE GOING TO OCCUR ON A REGULAR BASIS.
IF THEY DO NOT HAVE -- IF WE DO NOT HAVE, AS A COMMUNITY, THE ASSURANCE THAT
THE ASSUMPTION IS THAT THEY WILL -- THE RECOMMENDATIONS WILL BE IMPLEMENTED,
I THINK WE ARE SOON GOING TO FIND IT VERY CHALLENGING TO FIND COMMUNITY
MEMBERS WHO ARE WILLING TO DEDICATE THE SIGNIFICANT AMOUNT OF TIME TO WORK
IN A PROCESS WHICH IS AN OVERLAY PROCESS ON THE REST OF THE WORK THAT WE DO.




>>STEVE CROCKER: SO YOU MAKE A VERY, VERY IMPORTANT POINT. IT IS IMPORTANT
THAT THIS WORK BE TAKEN SERIOUSLY AND THAT IT -- AND THAT IT HAVE A POSITIVE
EFFECT, NOT ONLY OF IMPROVING OUR SYSTEMS BUT FOR THE PEOPLE WHO ARE ENGAGED
THAT THEIR WORK IS WORTHWHILE. AND I THINK WE'RE IN STRONG AGREEMENT ON
THAT. EQUALLY -- AND TWO MORE POINTS THAT I THINK I WANT TO -- I WANT TO
RAISE UP FROM WHAT YOU'VE SAID AND EMPHASIZE, THE -- THE WORK WITHIN THE
REVIEW TEAMS TO CHOOSE WHAT THE BALANCE IS AND TO DO A LOT OF THAT
NEGOTIATION GOES A VERY LONG WAY TOWARD MAKING THE RECOMMENDATION VERY
LIKELY TO SUCCEED. AND SO THAT PROCESS IS A HEALTHY PROCESS. AND FROM WHERE
I'M SITTING THE MORE OF THAT THAT'S DONE, THE BETTER IT IS FROM OUR
PERSPECTIVE AND THE EASIER IT IS TO ACCEPT THAT. THAT GOES ALL THE WAY UP TO
BUT NOT OVER THE LINE OF THEREFORE IT MUST BE SO JUST BECAUSE THAT WELL
INTENTIONED AND WELL ORGANIZED GROUP HAS DONE THAT. BUT IT INCREASES THE
LIKELIHOOD TREMENDOUSLY AND IS EXTREMELY WELCOMED AND PUTS US IN A
COMFORTABLE POSITION TO BE ALIGNED.