Re: [gnso-dow123] Emailing: 2100-9588_22-5986553.htm

["Milton Mueller" <mueller@xxxxxxx>]

>>> Ross Rader <ross@xxxxxxxxxx> 12/9/2005 10:26 PM >>>
>As a side note, I'm still struggling to understand the relevancy of 
>the GAO report in the context of our outstanding work. Aside 
>from reinforcing our terms of reference, is there really anything 
>of value in this report as it relates to tasks 2, 3 and 4?

It is not relevant to tasks 2 (purpose of various contacts) or 3 (what data 
should be published). 

It is probably relevant to task 4 (determine how to improve notification, 
investigation and correction of inaccurate data), providing some measure of 
where we stand now but no real guidance as to where to go or how to get there.

Despite its irrelevance to tasks 2 and 3, it is clear that some interests want 
to use the report to influence the outcome of those tasks. Putting on my 
academic's hat, I can attempt to trace the logic (or lack thereof) as follows:

1. 5% of the whois records are obviously inaccurate (factual)
2. Law enforcement (and IP lawyers) want accurate data (factual)
3. Ergo, the purpose of whois is to facilitate law enforcement (non sequitur), 
and
4. Ergo, all whois contact data should be public (another non sequitur)

It should be obvious that there is no logical relationship between factual 
propositions 1 and 2 on the one hand, and policy propositions 3 and 4 on the 
other. One can support accurate data without wanting to make it fully public, 
and one can believe that the accuracy of whois data will increase if its 
purpose is far more restricted than current uses.

The facts in the GAO report tell us nothing about how measures to improve the 
accuracy of the 5% will impose unecessary costs or burdens on the 95% who are 
already accurate, or which have trivial inaccuracies. 

The facts in the GAO report tell us noting about how much harsher measures to 
enforce accuracy will increase the accuracy measure (e.g., by 1%, 2%? 3%?) and 
how those measures might compare to the accuracy improvements caused by better 
data protection.

The facts in the GAO report provide no basis for concluding how real crimes 
committed on the Internet will be reduced by the existence of an incremental 
increase in accuracy, assuming that one could be accomplished.

The facts in the GAO report tell us nothing about how current Whois practices 
are related to ICANN's mission.

Etc. 

However, when politicians like Rep. Lamar Smith - a fully paid-for tool of the 
IP lobby - get involved, you can be sure that logic is not a primary 
consideration. For campaign contributors, see:

http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/indus.asp?CID=N00001811&cyc%20le=2004