[gnso-dow123] stop-gap issue

["Milton Mueller" <Mueller@xxxxxxx>]

>>> <Niklas_Lagergren@xxxxxxxx> 4/26/2005 4:13:59 PM >>>
>At this stage, it is pure speculation to assess whether this is a
>"stop-gap" measure or not. Only time will tell. 

Not at all. Everyone involved recognizes that the need for an ad hoc,
exceptions-based procedure is a less-than-optimal, near-term effort that
provides some protection and response capability while the bigger WHOIS
issues are resolved. No one has argued that this is a permanent solution
in the entire record, as far as I know.  

>It is obvious that assumptions differ among task force members on
this
>topic: some consider there is potentially a substantial number of
cases
>that would trigger the launch of the procedure outlined in draft
>Recommendation 2, whereas some other consider that the number of
cases
>would be minuscule (if any at all).

The number of cases that would come up is not really relevant to the
issue of whether this is a "stop-gap." You are correct that we do not
know how many cases would crop up. That doesn't matter. We all recognize
the possibility that something *could* happen. Therefore, we put in
place a temporary measure while we embark on the longer, more difficult
task of determining what kind of data will be accessible under Whois.
But we must make it clear that we are not stopping at this. 

>This consensus now seems to fade away within the new consolidated
>TF1-2-3. I share Tom's frustration (that I believe he expressed
during
>the call, sorry if I am misquoting you) that it feels like starting
all
>over again... 

I don't see any loss of consensus. There are some new people who needed
to be educated as to why we were doing this, and there are one or two
people who always opposed this measure.  But one thing is clear: people
in at least three of the involved stakeholder groups (registrars,
noncommercials, and at large, and probably registries as well) have made
clear their sense that this procedure only makes sense as a short-term
expedient, and that we need to address the larger privacy concerns
underlying it.