RE: [gnso-dow123] More questions for 3/15 discussion re recommendation 2

["Neuman, Jeff" <Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxx>]

The call is 2:00 pm Eastern US Time on Tuesday.  I am striving to capture the 
question and at the same time remain more objective.  If I do not capture the 
entire scope, then you can always add that in on the call.  In other words, 
these questions are to aid the General Counsel in preparing for our call, but 
it is not intended to be the entire amount of questions that we are able to 
ask.  

I will make that note in the document as well.

Thanks.

By the way, WE ARE NOW IN LAST CALL FOR QUESTIONS.....

Jeff

-----Original Message-----
From: Marilyn Cade [mailto:marilynscade@xxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Friday, March 11, 2005 2:16 PM
To: Neuman, Jeff; 'Steven J. Metalitz IIPA'; 'Milton Mueller';
jordyn@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Cc: gnso-dow123@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx; glen@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [gnso-dow123] More questions for 3/15 discussion re
recommendation 2


In rewording questions so that they are neutral in tone, there still needs
to be the full scope of the questions.I know you are striving for that.  The
call is at 2:00 p.m.? RIGHT? 

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-gnso-dow123@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-dow123@xxxxxxxxx] On
Behalf Of Neuman, Jeff
Sent: Friday, March 11, 2005 11:26 AM
To: Steven J. Metalitz IIPA; Milton Mueller; jordyn@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Cc: gnso-dow123@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx; glen@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [gnso-dow123] More questions for 3/15 discussion re
recommendation 2

I am trying to reword the questions to take out any subjectivity.  So far I
have gotten questions from Steve, Milton and Kathy.  I am also adding some
questions derived from our call several months back.

-----Original Message-----
From: Steven J. Metalitz IIPA [mailto:metalitz@xxxxxxxx]
Sent: Friday, March 11, 2005 11:20 AM
To: Neuman, Jeff; Milton Mueller; jordyn@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Cc: gnso-dow123@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx; glen@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [gnso-dow123] More questions for 3/15 discussion re
recommendation 2


Yes, though what is below is not a rewording of my questions but
Milton's own questions.    

I leave it up to you and Jordyn to determine the format in which the
questions will be submitted to ICANN staff.  I think if you simply
packaged together what has appeared on the list over the past 24 hours
it would not overstrain their bandwidth.     

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-gnso-dow123@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-dow123@xxxxxxxxx]
On Behalf Of Neuman, Jeff
Sent: Friday, March 11, 2005 11:10 AM
To: Milton Mueller; jordyn@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Cc: gnso-dow123@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx; glen@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [gnso-dow123] More questions for 3/15 discussion re
recommendation 2

Steve,

Are you ok with Milton's rewording of your question?



-----Original Message-----
From: owner-gnso-dow123@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-dow123@xxxxxxxxx]On
Behalf Of Milton Mueller
Sent: Thursday, March 10, 2005 2:08 PM
To: jordyn@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Cc: gnso-dow123@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx; glen@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: [gnso-dow123] More questions for 3/15 discussion re
recommendation 2



1. In your letter of December 20, you wrote: "might it be preferable to
focus GNSO attention on developing improvements to Whois policies that
will allow for the broadest possible harmony with local regulations?"
Can you elaborate on what you meant by that and perhaps suggest specific
ways in which the GNSO might do this? I ask this because the
recommendation under dispute was intended precisely to harmonize the
WHOIS requirements of the RAA with national privacy regulations.

2. Do you agree that the trade off, implicit in any Whois requirements,
between registrant privacy and the desire of other users to collect
information about domain holders is a policy calculation to be settled
through the GNSO's bottom up policy development process, and not
determined top-down by ICANN staff? 






Dr. Milton Mueller
Syracuse University School of Information Studies
http://www.digital-convergence.org
http://www.internetgovernance.org