RE: [gnso-dow123] Alternative proposal re Whois
- To: <ross@xxxxxxxxxx>, "Avri Doria" <avri@xxxxxxx>
- Subject: RE: [gnso-dow123] Alternative proposal re Whois
- From: "Paul Stahura" <stahura@xxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 2 Oct 2006 08:13:11 -0700
My interpretation of it is that it is mistaken/contradictory because it
says icann needs to enforce existing whois policy then it goes on to
incorrectly define the existing policy because it has "billing contact
information" in there. Can a lawyer chime in with what happens with
contracts that have this kind of issue?
From: owner-gnso-dow123@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-dow123@xxxxxxxxx]
On Behalf Of Ross Rader
Sent: Saturday, September 30, 2006 7:40 AM
To: Avri Doria
Subject: Re: [gnso-dow123] Alternative proposal re Whois
Avri Doria wrote:
> On 30 sep 2006, at 07.35, Milton Mueller wrote:
>>>>> Wendy Seltzer <wendy@xxxxxxxxxxx> 9/30/2006 12:21:28 AM >>>
>>> So much for policy development processes. I guess we might as well
>>> disband the TF, since the Board already appears to have decided.
>> As attractive as that sounds, the new MoU (and it is not different in
>> any important sense from the old one) calls upon ICANN to enforce
>> "existing whois policy." If the policy changes.....
> Are you saying that if existing policy was changed, then the new MOU
> would call for enforcing that new policy as that would be the existing
> policy at that time?
That's one interpretation. And with respect to Milton, a naive one.
The document clearly says, in my read, *the* -existing- policy, i.e. the
current policy. Despite the fact that there is vagueness in the
language, it is clear the DOC, Twomey and the lobby-weasels that put
this together, all intended that the policy doesn't change from the
Its quite clear that ICANN policy is made in DC, by ICANN staff, at the
request of the USG.