RE: [gnso-dow123] Proposal Premise Presupposes Publication

["Fares, David" <DFares@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Colleagues,

Sorry to be late in weighing-in on this but I have been traveling.  I agree
with Niklas that it is premature to determine whether this is a stop-gap
measure.  I also think that it would be very difficult to set deadlines as
proposed by Wendy.  Many of the issues related to Whois still require
significant substantive analysis.  Moreover it will be incumbent on us to
ensure that any proposal we put forward, assuming that proposals are put
forward, on the range of outstanding issues can actually be implemented (we
have been arguing from the outset that proposal would require a feasibility
study). 

David 

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-gnso-dow123@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-dow123@xxxxxxxxx] On
Behalf Of Wendy Seltzer
Sent: Wednesday, April 27, 2005 1:32 PM
To: Vittorio Bertola
Cc: gnso-dow123@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [gnso-dow123] Proposal Premise Presupposes Publication

Vittorio,

At 5:12 PM +0200 4/27/05, Vittorio Bertola wrote:
>Il giorno mar, 26-04-2005 alle 13:13 -0400, Ross Rader ha scritto:
>>  For these reasons, I'm not inclined to support this proposal in advance
>>  of actually dealing with the privacy rights and disclosure obligations
>>  found in ICANN's whois policy.
>
>I tend to share the same feeling. I think that the entire agenda is
>wrong and that a proposal like this one is unacceptable in front of a
>clear lack of will to address the implementation of basic privacy levels
>in domain name registrations, apart from some vague statements like "we
>will do it in the future" that have been repeated over and over for five
>years or so.

I agree with your and Ross's frustrations at the pace of this process 
and the way privacy seems to be an afterthought, but the sense of 
many of us in the un-consolidated TFs 1 and 2 was that it was better 
to do something to help users and registrars now than to make 
everything wait for a more optimal solution.  I'd support adding 
deadlines into this proposal mandating that more be done for privacy 
within a short time -- 3-6 months even -- but if we can work on both 
at the same time, it still helps to acknowledge that the system is 
unworkable with national law as-is.

--Wendy

>
>Also, there are some specific parts of the proposal that I can't support
>on a matter of principle; for example, the idea stated in the preamble
>that the role of privacy in Whois is essentially that of a nuisance to
>competition; the lack of any clear indication that this is meant to be a
>temporary measure (or better, even an expiration date for this policy);
>and the general orientation that would push solutions to preserve
>compliance with contractual obligations as much as possible (as if
>ICANN contracts were to be held higher than constitutional rights, and
>as if national Parliaments were a disturbance to business that must be
>reduced to the minimum).
>
>I am not sure whether I can actually explain this sense of frustration
>that comes from having a right recognized by law and seeing the
>regulator that should put it in place try to escape to its factual and
>moral obligations... but that's exactly what I feel now.
>--
>vb.             [Vittorio Bertola - v.bertola [a] bertola.eu.org]<-----
>http://bertola.eu.org/  <- Prima o poi...


-- 
--
Wendy Seltzer -- wendy@xxxxxxxxxxx || wendy@xxxxxxx
Electronic Frontier Foundation
Berkman Center for Internet & Society at Harvard Law School
http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/seltzer.html

-----------------------------------------
This message and its attachments may contain legally privileged or
confidential information.  It is intended solely for the named addressee.
If you are not the addressee indicated in this message (or responsible for
delivery of the message to the addressee), you may not copy or deliver this
message or its attachments to anyone. Rather, you should permanently delete
this message and its attachments and kindly notify the sender by reply
e-mail.  Any content of this message and its attachments that does not
relate to the official business of News America Incorporated or its
subsidiaries must be taken not to have been sent or endorsed by any of
them.  No representation is made that this email or its attachments are
without defect.