RE: [gnso-whois-study] Joining late, and suggested text for the no-report viewpoint

[Tim Ruiz <tim@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Should clarify that this needs to be expanded on, but is the general
summary/conclusion that I think those who feel no studies should be done
can generally agree on.
 
 
Tim 

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: [gnso-whois-study] Joining late, and suggested text for the
no-report viewpoint
From: Tim Ruiz <tim@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, May 13, 2008 10:04 am
To: "gnso-whois-study@xxxxxxxxx" <gnso-whois-study@xxxxxxxxx>
Cc: Liz Gasster <liz.gasster@xxxxxxxxx>


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*
view.


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
not exist. 

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
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 
the Council should reject any further studies at this time.



Tim 

-------- 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
forward.

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
digression.

Thanks,
--Wendy


Liz Gasster wrote:
> All,
> 
> 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 drafted.
> 
> 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.
> 
> Thanks, Liz
> 


-- 
Wendy Seltzer -- wendy@xxxxxxxxxxx
Visiting Professor, Northeastern University School of Law
Fellow, Berkman Center for Internet & Society
http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/seltzer.html
http://www.chillingeffects.org/
https://www.torproject.org/