RE: [gnso-dow123] Email from the Registry Constituency

[Tim Ruiz <tim@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

<div>&gt;&nbsp;a report that a constituency disavowed </div>
<div>&nbsp;</div>
<div>
Who wrote and approved their position statement? And they have
representation on the Council, right? Can't they clarify their concerns 
there?</div>
<div><BR><BR>Tim <BR></div>
<div   name="wmMessageComp"><BR><BR>
<BLOCKQUOTE style="PADDING-LEFT: 8px; MARGIN-LEFT: 8px; BORDER-LEFT: blue 2px 
solid">-------- Original Message --------<BR>Subject: RE: [gnso-dow123] Email 
from the Registry Constituency<BR>From: "Maria Farrell" 
&lt;maria.farrell@xxxxxxxxx&gt;<BR>Date: Mon, March 05, 2007 11:30 am<BR>To: 
"'Milton Mueller'" &lt;mueller@xxxxxxx&gt;, 
&lt;gnso-dow123@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx&gt;,<BR>"'Simon Sheard'" 
&lt;simon@xxxxxxxxxxx&gt;<BR>Cc: 
&lt;NCUC-DISCUSS@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx&gt;<BR><BR>Hi Milton,<BR><BR>I understand 
your frustration with this delay. <BR><BR>
My understanding of our process is that task force members can
request<BR>
changes until the report is finalised. In this situation, we had our
final<BR>
task force call a week ago, and received this request for changes
several<BR>
days later; after the final call but just before the task force was
to<BR>
receive the final report and start voting. As the task force 'straw
poll'<BR>
doesn't have any standing in the bylaws, this is a grey area where
my<BR>
inclination is to give everyone the opportunity to have their
views<BR>expressed in the final report. <BR><BR>
I've circulated to the task force my understanding of the situation
and<BR>
asked for a response within 24 hours to enable the Task Force to vote.
<BR><BR>
There is some interpretive room to accept comments at the very last
minute,<BR>
because the procedures don't define steps at that level of detail.
Jordyn<BR>and I are clear that our goal is to finalise a report that 
accurately<BR>
reflects the views of all parties, and allow the process to move to the
next<BR>
stage. I believe a report that a constituency disavowed is less helpful
to<BR>
the community than one which is imperfect but is at least a snapshot
of<BR>current support. <BR><BR>
If we do not get a clear outcome by tomorrow, then let's re-visit.
<BR><BR>All the best, Maria<BR><BR>-----Original Message-----<BR>From: Milton 
Mueller [mailto:mueller@xxxxxxx] <BR>Sent: Monday, March 05, 2007 7:15 
AM<BR>To: gnso-dow123@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx; Maria Farrell; Simon Sheard<BR>Cc: 
NCUC-DISCUSS@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx<BR>Subject: Re: [gnso-dow123] Email from the 
Registry Constituency<BR><BR>Maria and Jordyn:<BR><BR>
As you made clear to us at the close of the call, the Task Force is
over.<BR>
It's up to Maria to finish the report with the minor modifications
we<BR>
discussed. And the only issues she and you can take into consideration
are<BR>
the positions and statements made during and before the call where
we<BR>
deliberated on the final report. This is a procedural requirement.
ICANN<BR>
will never work if people can reopen issues after the process dealing
with<BR>them is closed.<BR><BR>
Thus I have a procedural objection to Simon's proposal. If the
registry<BR>
constitency wants to completely change its position (obviously in
response<BR>
to extramural political pressure and God only knows what kind of deal
or<BR>
bribe) the sad fact is that it's simply too late for that change to
be<BR>reflected in this report.<BR><BR>The Report is finished -- or at least it 
would be, in any well-run<BR>
organization and any community where people have some standards
of<BR>
integrity. That of course doesn't prevent the RyC from pursuing its
deal<BR>
with the devil in other forums. But at least let's maintain the
integrity of<BR>the TF process.<BR><BR>Simon: Let me put before you some of the 
statements of your own<BR>
constituency. How are we supposed to reconcile this statement from
your<BR>official constituency postion::<BR><BR>
"As stated above, RyC generally supports the underlying concepts of the
OPoC<BR>proposal."<BR><BR>with the statement in his current email:<BR><BR>
"I thus must ask that the Registry Constituency be removed from the list
of<BR>those who are 'broadly' in support of Opoc..."<BR><BR>
The two statements are in direct contradiction. And yet the first
statement<BR>
was a product of a careful and lengthy process and stood in place for
many<BR>
months, while the second is a furtive, incoherent and desperately
last<BR>
minute intervention of unkown motives and questionable authenticity.
<BR><BR>
More to the point, why did the registry constituency allow this
report,<BR>
which has listed RyC as a supporter of OPoC, to stand unchanged
and<BR>
unchallenged for nearly three months? Why did it not raise the concerns
on<BR>the last call, or during the months and months of endless 
teleconferences<BR>
that preceded it? How legitimate is it, how seriously can this manuever
be<BR>taken? I would suggest, not at all. <BR><BR>
The RyC statement -- the real one, not this pathetic manuever of an
email --<BR>has this to say about delaying tactics:<BR><BR>
"Although this task force was convened in February 2005, it is the
outgrowth<BR>
of proceedings that began in 2001, nearly six years ago. It is a
sad<BR>
commentary on the processes of the GNSO and its task forces that it
has<BR>taken over six years to arrive at what are essentially two 
simple<BR>conclusions..." <BR><BR>
"The lofty goal of policy making by consensus has been subverted
by<BR>
constituencies that have a vested interested in preservation of the
status<BR>
quo in the WHOIS. The proceedings of this task force and its
predecessors<BR>
have dragged on over the years mainly because of procedural maneuvering
with<BR>little or no connection to the substantive issues." <BR><BR>
Simon, I suggest that you read that part of your statement again, and
ask<BR>
yourself: is this effort of yours not perpetuating that problem? Is it
not<BR>
deliberately intended to destroy the products of this task force's work?
And<BR>
if so, hasn't someone in your own constituency already blown the whistle
on<BR>you? <BR><BR>
&gt;&gt;&gt; "Simon Sheard" &lt;simon@xxxxxxxxxxx&gt; 3/2/2007 3:01:40
AM &gt;&gt;&gt;<BR><BR>Jordyn, Maria, all,<BR><BR>
Following continued discussions within the Registry Constituency I
must<BR>request an amendment be made to the Executive Summary report.<BR><BR>
In our written statement (which is section 13.4 in my copy but part
of<BR>
section 11? Presumably a bug?) we did express support for the Opoc
proposal<BR>
but felt that it did not go nearly far enough when it came to addressing
the<BR>
question of access to data by parties having legitimate needs for
such<BR>
access. We also highlighted the necessity of Sponsored Registries to be
able<BR>
to determine the eligibility of registration applicants themselves
something<BR>which is not adequately covered by the Opoc proposal 
either.<BR><BR>
It is thus the majority view of the Registry Constituency that to
include us<BR>in the Executive Summary in a list of Constituencies who 
'broadly'<BR>support<BR>Opoc is misleading.<BR><BR>in the "Summary of the 
Task<BR>
Force Policy Recommendation to the GNSO Council" section in the
Executive<BR>Summary.<BR><BR>
For the avoidance of doubt can I also ask, if a paragraph is included
along<BR>
the lines that Milton has proposed, that the three Constituencies in
support<BR>of the Special Circumstances Proposal are actually named.<BR><BR>
Finally, we would like to request that a new paragraph be added,
after<BR>Milton's paragraph, as follows:<BR><BR>
"While the Registry Constituency prefers the Opoc solution to the
Special<BR>
Circumstances proposal it is unable to give it's support at this time
since<BR>
it does not adequately address the question of access to data by
parties,<BR>
such as law enforcement, who have legitimate needs for such access, nor
does<BR>
it adequately deal with the issue that Sponsored Registries must be able
to<BR>determine certain eligibility requirements themselves."<BR><BR>
Please accept my apologies for the delay in communicating this to
the<BR>
Taskforce but I have had difficulties in contacting members of the
Registry<BR>Constituency in the last few days.<BR><BR>Sincerely<BR><BR>Simon 
Sheard<BR>On Behalf of the Registry Constituency </BLOCKQUOTE></DIV>