Re: [gnso-whois-wg] Why OPoC Must have Relationship w/ Registrar/ICANN not just Registrant not just Registrant not just Registrant not just Registrant
Scoville, Adam wrote: If, with that in mind, OPoC no longer seems manageable to you, then maybe we should look for, in Tim Ruiz's words of a few weeks ago, "a paradigm that better fits the reality of today's privacy issues and needs for access. It should also be done in narrower more manageable increments that will have a better chance of success within a reasonable time period." I agree. I think its time for this group to pack it in. Your message makes it very clear to me that a goal of those that don't favor accomodating invidivual privacy rights within Whois policy want to make what was once a very simple and adequate proposal very complex. I am not sure if this is because you believe that this is the only way your interests will be protected or whether you are being purposely obstructive, but I'm not sure it matters. It is painfully clear to me that this group has made no progress towards agreeing on solutions to the objections raised in Portugal and that we should simply move ahead with implementing those points that we do have sufficient support from prior efforts to move ahead with. Rather sad actually, I had viewed this as a tremendous opportunity to make some meaningful amendments that would be truly helpful to the law enforcement and other stakeholder communities, however I am now convinced that this was really just a waste of time as the IP interests look to increase the scope of their investigative and enforcement capabilities. After seven years of this, I suppose I shouldn't be surprised. I am however pleased that there is a core set of recommendations that we can move ahead with as a policy recommendation, regardless of what this working group dresses up as consensus. -- Regards, Ross Rader Director, Retail Services Tucows Inc. http://www.domaindirect.com t. 416.538.5492
|