RE: [gnso-acc-sgb] Second draft report for Subgroup B
Dear Milton, It seems that almost all of our time as a subgroup has been consumed by the staking of respective positions, as opposed to our trying to reach common ground. I fear that your "Draft Report on Subgroup B Deliberations" is reflective of this. At present, I think it is fair to say that there is no proposal that has gained the status of "agreement." Even the LEA approach seems to merit only a claim to have the status of "support." A number of members of our Working Group on Subgroup B have expressed concern about giving all LEAs access. Others on the Subgroup have expressed concern over whether the access would be through Interpol, national agencies, or some other means. In terms of the LEAs, it is fair to say that the Subgroup is probably pretty much where it was six weeks ago. No real movement has occurred. As far as private parties go, I think there has been virtually no effort to find common ground. I had understood that our Subgroup would not be voting or attempting to winnow the proposals that would go to the entire Working Group. Your templates were intended, I understood, to provide a range of choices for the entire Working Group. By using the template, it had been hoped that the proposals could be consolidated to an extent in order to lessen the burden on the entire Working Group by reducing the number of proposals. Unfortunately, I find your draft report is simply a de facto attempt to eliminate almost all the proposals. As you might expect, I particularly object to your effort to effectively exclude the bank proposal from consideration by the Working Group. I would suggest that the bank proposal is a detailed, specific approach that addresses one of the biggest risks to internet users while addressing privacy concerns. If you are going to categorize proposals as having "agreement," "support," and "alternate view status," I would insist that we use formal voting by Constitutencies rather than informal characterization. I understand the objection to such voting, and, frankly, I agree with the concern that voting in this way tends to harden positions. We already have too many hardened positions. BUT if you are going to use formal terminology, I would suggest subjective characterizations by the Chair, and frankly a Chair with thoughful, but strongly held personal, positions is not appropriate to the process here. I would respectfully suggest either we not attempt to characterize with formal terminology or, if we are going to use formal terminology, we use formal processes. We shouldn't cloak informality with formal facades. Either be formal or not. Finally, having said all this, let me put on the table what I am terming a Blended Proposal. As I say, the last six weeks have consisted of us talking past one another, not to one another. An exception to this process has been some on-line and some off-line communications to me from Dan Krimm and Eric Dierker. If I am not going to be guilty of doing what I am bemoan above, I think I should put something on the table that emanates from those discussions. So, I am attaching a new template that incorporates the ideas that have been suggested. I realize that much further vetting will be required. Still, I think this Blended Proposal represents a way to move us along. I have labeled it as a Blended Proposal, because it provides banks with access through LEAs (in this case governmental bank regulators), and it is the result of suggestions made by Dan and Eric in this regard. It also fits within your Fourth Category in the "Degree of Access Granted" in your draft report. I hope that this good faith effort to find common ground will result in some forward movement, and I appreciate very much the input of Dan and Eric into this process. -----Original Message----- From: owner-gnso-acc-sgb@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-acc-sgb@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Milton Mueller Sent: Sunday, May 27, 2007 9:54 AM To: gnso-acc-sgb@xxxxxxxxx Subject: [gnso-acc-sgb] Second draft report for Subgroup B Dear colleagues: Here is a second draft of a report that takes into account our discussion Wednesday and sets the agenda for our discussion next week. Basically I have applied the language regarding "agreement," "support" and "alternate view" to specific propositions about legitimate third parties and types of access. For definition of how these terms are used, please see the WG charter at this URL: http://gnso.icann.org/issues/whois-privacy/whois-wg/whois-working-group- charter-16apr07.pdf I have also refined somewhat the definition of access types in line with last week's discussion. And I have added a new section on the "Constraints of Port 43" which emerged in our discussion last week and I think is important. Whenever the terms "agreement" "support" and "alternate view" are used, I have put them in bold type so that you can easily spot them. I would project that our next (and last?) conference call would be devoted to settling the details and sorting out any final disagreements about where agreement does or does not exist. It is evident that we will achieve at best not a detailed proposal but a set of parameters that can guide the full WG. Attachment:
Subgroup B Chart Blended proposal.doc
|