Re: [gnso-whois-study] Joining late, and suggested text for the no-report viewpoint
- To: Tim Ruiz <tim@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: Re: [gnso-whois-study] Joining late, and suggested text for the no-report viewpoint
- From: Eric Brunner-Williams <ebw@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 13 May 2008 11:27:30 -0700
Tim, and also Dan, and Wendy,
I suggest adding a paragraph to describe the existing policy as the
policy Peter Deutsch described in 1973  and maintained without
modification of policy on data collection, or data publication, until
Ken Harrenstein, Mary Stahl and Jake Feinler wrote the NICNAME/WHOIS
specification in 1985 . That is, the current ICANN policy is Defense
Communications Agency policy of 1973, restated in 1985, for a restricted
We can thank, and dismiss, Vint Cerf, Peter Deutsch, Jake Feinler, and
Nancy Neigus for getting the Official Host Name list to happen, and for
it to be available on-line, for the last 35 years, but it is time to
recognize that ICANN does not coordinate technical policy for MILNET,
nor does it properly inherit without modification, the technical policy
of the Defense Communications Agency.
 RFC 606 " Host Names On-line"
"Since the NIC has responsibility for maintaining the official
list, lt seems appropriate for them to maintain an on-line file,
accessible to anyone ..."
 RFC 954 " NICNAME/WHOIS"
"DCA requests that each individual with a directory on an ARPANET or
MILNET host, who is capable of passing traffic across the DoD
Internet, be registered in the NIC WHOIS Database. MILNET TAC users
must be registered in the database."
I really like the no-nonsense-it-really-is-politics summary Wendy wrote.
I just have one additional idea to suggest, and I'd be happy if someone
else wordsmithed it. While we've been stuck on this subject whole new
predatory games have developed, and the narrow pursuit of two interests
using a fairly cumbersome tool has prevented work to mitigate threats to
the DNS, and orders of magnitude larger populations of targets of crime
other than trademark infringement and porn (or whatever is the cherry in
the law enforcement pie of the moment). The unfortunate fact is that law
enforcement isn't very good at what we do, neither was the NSA circa
1987, which is why we now have CERT, and we can't help them very
effectively when they claim the right to remain stuck in the 80s.
Towards the end of the call some of the authors of the future section 3
mentioned two items and reasonably sought comment from the the authors
of the future section 2. As I was muted due to ambient noise I made no
reply, and I agree with David Maher. The position of the GAC is not
binding upon the GNSO. It probably isn't even binding on the CCNSO. The
existence of a market for anything does not end the ICANN responsibility
to formulate process, and by clear process, formulate and implement
policy. The fact that there still are soldiers who use some namespaces
does not involuntarily induct every user of every namespace into some
military organization, and the fact that "privacy" is for sale doesn't
mean the right to privacy has gone the way of the right to trial by combat.
To the authors of section 3 I suggest they address why no scheme ever
proposed to them, every variation on tiered access, etc., has been
dismissed. I'm actually interested, not that interest, or insight, in
non-local optimization can ever displace local optimization.
Tim Ruiz wrote:
Sorry, I will be joining late today.
Wendy's comments raise an important issue - that even among those who
may agree that additional studies should *not* be done, there are
varying reasons for that view. But since we are trying to consolidate
into one view I propose the following expression of the *no studies*
WHOIS has been the subject of consensus policy work for over seven years
and it is painfully clear that consensus on the majority of issues does
No ICANN funds should be spent on these studies without clear evidence
that these studies will advance the policymaking process. The results of
these studies will simply be accepted by those whose agendas they
criticized by those on the other side. Even well engineered studies with
strong conclusions have no compelling force against the interest group
politics that has been going on for more than seven years so far. Thus
the Council should reject any further studies at this time.
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: [gnso-whois-study] documents for tomorrow's call
From: Wendy Seltzer <wendy@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, May 12, 2008 9:06 pm
To: Liz Gasster <liz.gasster@xxxxxxxxx>
Cc: "gnso-whois-study@xxxxxxxxx" <gnso-whois-study@xxxxxxxxx>
I apologize, I will not be able to join tomorrow's call.
Here's a recap of some of what I've said on the calls and online,
opposing any further studies.
I object to spending any of ICANN's registrant-derived funds on further
studies of WHOIS. The primary barrier to resolving WHOIS/privacy issues
is not lack of data, but lack of political will. So long as those who
are happy with the status quo of full published access to registrants'
identifying information can maintain that status quo by blocking
consensus around any changes, they will do so. Requesting further
"studies" is a way of retaining status quo while appearing to move
Until we can resolve a way around that blockage, further studies will
not advance the policymaking process. They will simply be subjected to
the same spin: accepted by those whose agendas they further, criticized
by those on the other side. Even well engineered studies with strong
conclusions have no compelling force against the interest group politics
that has been going on for more than seven years so far. Thus without
concrete commitments from constituencies to modify their policy agendas
in response to studies, the Council should reject any further
Liz Gasster wrote:
Attached please find three draft documents for your review, as follows:
1. Updated tally sheet of participant/constituency views
2. Draft updated list of study submissions that includes the GAC proposals under the
designated category. Please consider also a new "category 8" which includes
several GAC recommendations that do not map to any study previously recommended.
3. DRAFT placeholder "report" to the GNSO Council with gaps where group
viewpoints can be inserted. Feel free to suggest edits to the background text I've
To-date I have not seen any draft language for the 2 viewpoints shared on the
full list. Note that on our last call we agreed that representatives of the (2)
differing viewpoints would draft initial language setting forth the two points
of view and supporting rationale. The group that is supporting further studies
would also try to develop a proposal for certain studies, and supporting
rationale, that all study proponents might endorse. This would form the basis
for text in the attached report, sections 2 and 3.
Let's discuss all on tomorrow's call, including how we can expedite completion
by 22 May. BTW I'm still pursuing follow-up on the request about IRIS and
CRISP. I hope to have some feedback ASAP.