RE: [gnso-dow123] Email from the Registry Constituency
- To: "'Milton Mueller'" <mueller@xxxxxxx>, <gnso-dow123@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "'Simon Sheard'" <simon@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: RE: [gnso-dow123] Email from the Registry Constituency
- From: "Maria Farrell" <maria.farrell@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 5 Mar 2007 18:30:41 +0100
I understand your frustration with this delay.
My understanding of our process is that task force members can request
changes until the report is finalised. In this situation, we had our final
task force call a week ago, and received this request for changes several
days later; after the final call but just before the task force was to
receive the final report and start voting. As the task force 'straw poll'
doesn't have any standing in the bylaws, this is a grey area where my
inclination is to give everyone the opportunity to have their views
expressed in the final report.
I've circulated to the task force my understanding of the situation and
asked for a response within 24 hours to enable the Task Force to vote.
There is some interpretive room to accept comments at the very last minute,
because the procedures don't define steps at that level of detail. Jordyn
and I are clear that our goal is to finalise a report that accurately
reflects the views of all parties, and allow the process to move to the next
stage. I believe a report that a constituency disavowed is less helpful to
the community than one which is imperfect but is at least a snapshot of
If we do not get a clear outcome by tomorrow, then let's re-visit.
All the best, Maria
From: Milton Mueller [mailto:mueller@xxxxxxx]
Sent: Monday, March 05, 2007 7:15 AM
To: gnso-dow123@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx; Maria Farrell; Simon Sheard
Subject: Re: [gnso-dow123] Email from the Registry Constituency
Maria and Jordyn:
As you made clear to us at the close of the call, the Task Force is over.
It's up to Maria to finish the report with the minor modifications we
discussed. And the only issues she and you can take into consideration are
the positions and statements made during and before the call where we
deliberated on the final report. This is a procedural requirement. ICANN
will never work if people can reopen issues after the process dealing with
them is closed.
Thus I have a procedural objection to Simon's proposal. If the registry
constitency wants to completely change its position (obviously in response
to extramural political pressure and God only knows what kind of deal or
bribe) the sad fact is that it's simply too late for that change to be
reflected in this report.
The Report is finished -- or at least it would be, in any well-run
organization and any community where people have some standards of
integrity. That of course doesn't prevent the RyC from pursuing its deal
with the devil in other forums. But at least let's maintain the integrity of
the TF process.
Simon: Let me put before you some of the statements of your own
constituency. How are we supposed to reconcile this statement from your
official constituency postion::
"As stated above, RyC generally supports the underlying concepts of the OPoC
with the statement in his current email:
"I thus must ask that the Registry Constituency be removed from the list of
those who are 'broadly' in support of Opoc..."
The two statements are in direct contradiction. And yet the first statement
was a product of a careful and lengthy process and stood in place for many
months, while the second is a furtive, incoherent and desperately last
minute intervention of unkown motives and questionable authenticity.
More to the point, why did the registry constituency allow this report,
which has listed RyC as a supporter of OPoC, to stand unchanged and
unchallenged for nearly three months? Why did it not raise the concerns on
the last call, or during the months and months of endless teleconferences
that preceded it? How legitimate is it, how seriously can this manuever be
taken? I would suggest, not at all.
The RyC statement -- the real one, not this pathetic manuever of an email --
has this to say about delaying tactics:
"Although this task force was convened in February 2005, it is the outgrowth
of proceedings that began in 2001, nearly six years ago. It is a sad
commentary on the processes of the GNSO and its task forces that it has
taken over six years to arrive at what are essentially two simple
"The lofty goal of policy making by consensus has been subverted by
constituencies that have a vested interested in preservation of the status
quo in the WHOIS. The proceedings of this task force and its predecessors
have dragged on over the years mainly because of procedural maneuvering with
little or no connection to the substantive issues."
Simon, I suggest that you read that part of your statement again, and ask
yourself: is this effort of yours not perpetuating that problem? Is it not
deliberately intended to destroy the products of this task force's work? And
if so, hasn't someone in your own constituency already blown the whistle on
>>> "Simon Sheard" <simon@xxxxxxxxxxx> 3/2/2007 3:01:40 AM >>>
Jordyn, Maria, all,
Following continued discussions within the Registry Constituency I must
request an amendment be made to the Executive Summary report.
In our written statement (which is section 13.4 in my copy but part of
section 11? Presumably a bug?) we did express support for the Opoc proposal
but felt that it did not go nearly far enough when it came to addressing the
question of access to data by parties having legitimate needs for such
access. We also highlighted the necessity of Sponsored Registries to be able
to determine the eligibility of registration applicants themselves something
which is not adequately covered by the Opoc proposal either.
It is thus the majority view of the Registry Constituency that to include us
in the Executive Summary in a list of Constituencies who 'broadly'
Opoc is misleading.
in the "Summary of the Task
Force Policy Recommendation to the GNSO Council" section in the Executive
For the avoidance of doubt can I also ask, if a paragraph is included along
the lines that Milton has proposed, that the three Constituencies in support
of the Special Circumstances Proposal are actually named.
Finally, we would like to request that a new paragraph be added, after
Milton's paragraph, as follows:
"While the Registry Constituency prefers the Opoc solution to the Special
Circumstances proposal it is unable to give it's support at this time since
it does not adequately address the question of access to data by parties,
such as law enforcement, who have legitimate needs for such access, nor does
it adequately deal with the issue that Sponsored Registries must be able to
determine certain eligibility requirements themselves."
Please accept my apologies for the delay in communicating this to the
Taskforce but I have had difficulties in contacting members of the Registry
Constituency in the last few days.
On Behalf of the Registry Constituency