Re: [gnso-dow123] Re: [council] Regarding Letter from American Intellectual Property Law Association

[Ross Rader <ross@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Anthony Harris wrote:

> The core business of operators can hardly revolve around what happens
> to WHOIS, no one ever stated that. WHOIS information is but one
> useful resource that we see no need to hide or do away with it. It is
> comforting to see that you are vigilant over our website and it's contents.
> There is work in progress going on there.

The "we" you speak of and the "work in progress" are directly related. I 
tried to go to your website to confirm whether or not any of the hosting 
companies and ISPs I work with are listed in your membership. Instead, I 
found a list of members containing dead people, defunct organizations 
and an admonishment that the ISPCP website was offline. If this is the 
"we" that you speak of, I'm not sure that there's much more conversation 
to be had.


> OK they are entitled to have a different viewpoint, and so?

...and so, you mentioned that you have yet to meet an operator whose 
interests are served by formulation 1. I mentioned that I knew many of 
them and would be happy to make an introduction if you thought it would 
be helpful. My offer still stands.

> This is a complete misrepresentation of fact. The ISPCP never refused
> to consider alternatives to unfettered access to WHOIS data. The
> subject of tiered access began to be discussed quite some time ago in
> the TF (possibly you were not around at that time), and was put aside
> for later work, we did not oppose tiered access as a concept.

Hmmm. Perhaps I'm confused then. The ISPCP constituency (such as it is) 
formal submission to the Whois Task Force pretty explicitly states that 
"The ISPCP believes that regardless of the vast growth of the number of 
domain registrations, some core principles should remain unchanged, and 
ready access to all Whois data is one such principle."

This is a pretty categorical statement and I'm hard pressed to reconcile 
the need for "ready access to all Whois data" with the more restrictive 
data access methods in the various Tiered Access proposals.


> I fail to see how highlighting a rather evident fact is equivalent to 
> speaking
> out of context, it rather helps to see what we are talking about in the 
> midst
> of all the noise...I did not know you said this, but thanks for the 
> confirmation!
> Your actions speak for themselves, my opinion is unimportant. The OPOC
> solution is a pretty lame suggestion, fully in context with the 
> Formulation 1
> which you successfully voted through. And thanks for confirming the
> 'technical solutions proposed are not practical, nor affordable' with 
> regards
> to tiered access. And by the way it is not that particular approach that 
> is 'too
> agressive', but your continuous vehemence and intolerance which at least I
> find unacceptable.

Stick your ad hominem in your back pocket where it belongs.

I'm not disappointed to hear you characterize the registrar OPOC 
proposal as lame, but I am disappointed, again, with your stark refusal 
to make any sort of substantive submission that might help better the 
proposal. We have heard time and time again about everything that the 
ISPCP, BCUC and IPC don't like, but we rarely, if ever hear, about how 
we can improve the substantive proposals made in a manner that might be 
more acceptable to all involved. This is the advocacy problem that I 
speak of. If the OPOC proposal is indeed lame, stop talking about it and 
instead, devote some of your rhetorical energy towards writing down a 
counter-proposal that we can consider. In other words, participate in 
the process or get out of the way.

Regarding my statement concerning the costs of tiered access, they are 
related to implementation of the new CRISP/IRIS protocol, the new 
compliance, authorization and credentialling programs that go along with 
it and the mass migration from the existing, simpler, WHOIS protocol 
that would need to occur. The OPOC proposal is an attempt to implement 
tiered access within the current environment (i.e. continue to provide 
law enforcement and government agency interests with an extremely broad 
dataset, provide other users with a more limited, but more useful dataset).

> You are quite right, there is nothing cooperative about the current TF 
> or the
> GNSO's policy development process. I would simply reply that you have
> described, in utter perfection, the attitudes you express in your frequent
> interventions, and your total unwillingness to accept disagreement with 
> your
> positions. If little progress has been made, I would not deny you your
> ample share of the credit.

Again with the ad hominem Tony. I would have expected more from an 
elected representative to the GNSO Council. Perhaps manners and grace 
aren't part of the eligibility requirements in the ISPCP election 
process - if there is one.


> It is a falsity that outreach was made to, at least, our constituency.
> In fact, as you may recall in Luxembourg I attempted this, and was
> rewarded later with a document containing......the OPOC !

Fine. I'm happy to live with your more curious version of events - I'm 
not sure that it matters one whit either. It is a well known fact that 
the OPOC proposal was first published shortly after Mar del Plata after 
having been drafted by a group of registrars that during the Argentine 
meeting. It is a lesser known fact that there was a meeting between the 
ISPCP and a group of Registrars in Luxembourg as you point out. If I 
recall, we discussed the issue of contactability and other matters - all 
principles that the "lame" OPOC proposal espouses. It is also a 
well-established fact that this same proposal has been modified many, 
many times based on input from interested stakeholders in the registry, 
registrar, non-commercial and other communities. I'd be happy to amend 
it further based on input from yours, which I why I will continue to 
reiterate the question I have been incessantly asking of you and others 
that seem to staunchly opposed to progress:

"How can the existing proposals that have been tabled be changed so that 
they are suitable for the needs of the stakeholders you represent?"

Regards,

--

                       -rr








                "Don't be too timid and squeamish about your actions.
                                           All life is an experiment.
                            The more experiments you make the better."
                        - Ralph Waldo Emerson


Contact Info:

Ross Rader
Director, Research & Innovation
Tucows Inc.
t. 416.538.5492
c. 416.828.8783

Get Started: http://start.tucows.com
My Blogware: http://www.byte.org