Re: [gnso-acc-sgb] query-screening paradigm

[Dan Krimm <dan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

At 8:25 AM -0400 5/26/07, Carole Bird wrote:

>Also could you clarify what your definition of an Affidavit is?  (I don't
>want to assume that it is the same definition everywhere or that the
>elements of an affidavit are the same everywhere.)
>


I'm using that term mainly because Susan used that word in her proposal.
What I'm getting at here is simply a structured application for private
Whois information that has some legal weight (the person applying is taking
legal responsibility for accuracy of the application, with legal
consequences in the event of fraud so that the audit trail is legally
actionable, and tangible evidence must be provided in order to clear a
minimal hurdle of need).

However this paradigm needs to be designed to make that work, that's what
I'm suggesting.  I'm certainly open to detailed points of refinement, as
this is clearly not a 100% intact proposal.

The overall idea here is that this process should not be located entirely
in the private realm.  It needs real, serious hooks into the legal/judicial
system in order to maintain accountability to public interests.  It's about
retaining some meaningful structure of due process while allowing efficient
and timely responsiveness where appropriate.  Those who claim this is not
possible are not trying very hard to explore those possibilities.

The modus operandi I'm trying to use here is to keep our eyes on the
general goals we want to achieve, and then explore the details to see if we
can achieve them in an integrated paradigm.  That's the only way we get to
real consensus.

Palmer is right that we've been staking out (and arguing against) extreme
positions for a few weeks here.  If we keep doing that we'll never get to
consensus.  Consensus requires addressing *all* concerns *seriously*.  Most
of the exchanges in this WG have not been serious in that sense, and I
don't exclude many of my own contributions which have been arguing against
extremes posed by others.

While I am not retracting anything I've posted here, and I think everything
I've offered is self-consistent as a whole, I also recognize that many
justified defensive contributions do not necessarily lead toward ultimate
consensus.  My contributions over the last couple days are intended to
alter that approach.

Dan