RE: [gnso-acc-sgb] Second draft report for Subgroup B

["Milton Mueller" <Mueller@xxxxxxx>]

>>> "Palmer Hamilton" <PalmerHamilton@xxxxxxxxxxx> 5/29/2007 4:37 PM
>>>
>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.

I saw the proposal-making stage as an unavoidable first step. It made
it clear how the different parties conceived of the kind of access they
wanted, needed, or saw as acceptable or unacceptable. It forced all
sides to concretize their processes and mechanisms rather than posit
desirable results. It clarified some of the practical issues as well.

What happened next was to identify the principal issues and snags
around which the parties diverged. I think real progress was made. Not
that we reached consensus on a specific access mechanism, but I think we
understand much, much better where we can and cannot go and what issues
will be faced in putting together an implementation.

In particular, I think the following sentence is pretty indisputable in
terms of the results of our discussions: 

"There is agreement that LEAs be granted at least Type 1 access (when
the gatekeeper is "due process") and support for granting them Type
2 access. There is agreement that private parties should not be granted
Type 3 access." 

>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.

There is no "LEA approach" if by that you mean a full-fledged proposal.
There is, rather, an agreement that LEAs are legitimate third parties
when following due process based on national law, and support for the
view that Type 2 access should be granted to them. 

>Unfortunately, I find your draft report is simply a de facto attempt 
>to eliminate almost all the proposals.

All of the proposals will be part of the final report. But can you
claim that any individual proposal has agreement, or even widespread
support outside of its constituency of origin? 

>As you might expect, I particularly object to your effort to
effectively 
>exclude the bank proposal from consideration by the Working Group.

Palmer, I understand your disappointment at the failure of the sectoral
approach to command the necessary agreement, but please do not blame
that on me. We set aside a significant part of last week's call to that
issue. During that conversation, I specifically asked whether anyone
besides me objected to a sectoral approach. Had I been the only obstacle
I would have removed my own objection at that point. But in fact, no one
at that point strongly advocated moving forward with the bank proposal.
One person (Philip) proposed that it might be used as a model but
insisted that a non-sectoral approach was superior. Two people from
constituencies that often have widely divergent views on Whois issues,
registrars and business, spoke out strongly against a special approach
for one sector. 

So I think the report's conclusion is justified: "Overall, there seems
to be rough consensus that the WG should not devote its time to a
sector-specific bank proposal at this time."

>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. 

None of the positions expressed in the report are subjective, positions
on all of them were solicited and discussed during the conference call.


>Finally, having said all this, let me put on the table what I am
terming
>a Blended Proposal.  [snip]

>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.

OK, we can all take a look at it and discuss it in the next
teleconference. 
I accept it as a good faith effort. I had hoped to see more of these
attempts at "blended proposals" during the process. It's a bit late now,
but better late than never.