RE: [nc-whois] "noise on the task force"

["Abel Wisman" <abel@able-towers.com>]

I have to agree with Thomas here, sadly.

What distresses me most is the following:

There was a task-outline set for this task-force, which upon our first
reports was translated by ICANN/NC to:

"Consult with community with regard to establishing whether a review of
ICANN's WHOIS policy is due and, if so, how best to address "

To this was added:

Louis Touton reminded Council of a request from Verio Inc. regarding a
change in the Registrar's Accreditation agreement about bulk WHOIS data
obtained from registrars and the marketing uses for it.
The ICANN reconsideration committee recommended referring the issue to
the DNSO. 
Philip Sheppard asked if it could be referred to the existing Task Force
or would it require a new group.
The WHOIS TF Chair said it was an issue that could be taken up by the
WHOIS task force if the Council requested it.  

Philip Sheppard proposed:
To refer the issue to the existing WHOIS TF and for the TF to report
back by e-mail to the NC within 14 days how they intend to deal with it.
Decision 6: The proposal was adopted. There was one abstention.

After Bucharest we were concentratingon 4 area's:

1.      Accuracy of the data contained in the WHOIS database.

2.      Uniformity of data formats and elements across various TLDs and
registrars, including ccTLDs.

3.      Better searchability.

4.      Better protection of data subjects from marketing use of the
data contained in the WHOIS database.


This was all reported to the NC.

Even though the added question and proposal on our TOR was all ran by
the NC and known to ICANN and ICANN Council, we have not been at any
given moment in time, instructed into possible limitations to proposals.

In doing so now, upon instignation from the registrar/registry
constituencies? We can easely conclude that for a large part we can
start all over again, within the now given limitations.

What also is a point of worry is that overlooking the list of members of
this TF and the on/off whois mail-archives, there is not one word of the
possible objections.

So let's look at what we got:

A report that even before the comment period is over and the
presentation is a fact is already disputed though the back door,
A TF that seemingly does not communicate with each other to a level that
constituency concerns are not intoriduced.
A "hanging" subject (the NC question on VERIO's bulk access changes)

I still feel we can salvage a lot, but would like to do so in a positive
way, with the "cards on the table".

It is an integrated part of consensus to share objections, we should all
consider those objections and in the end choose to add a "minority"
opinion or, share consensis with the rest.

I am with interest looking towards our communications on this subject
and to see what we can salvage

Kind regards

Abel






-----Original Message-----
From: owner-nc-whois@dnso.org [mailto:owner-nc-whois@dnso.org] On Behalf
Of Thomas Roessler
Sent: 21 October 2002 21:02
To: nc-whois@dnso.org
Subject: [nc-whois] "noise on the task force"


For your information.  Here's Mr. Palage's latest comment on what's  
going on on this task force.

I seriously wonder why I have spent _any_ time on this stuff.
-- 
Thomas Roessler                        <roessler@does-not-exist.org>





----- Forwarded message from "Michael D. Palage" <michael@palage.com>
-----

From: "Michael D. Palage" <michael@palage.com>
To: <DannyYounger@cs.com>, <touton@icann.org>
Cc: <ga@dnso.org>
Date: Mon, 21 Oct 2002 12:18:14 -0400
Subject: RE: [ga] Legal Briefing
Envelope-to: roessler@does-not-exist.info
Delivery-date: Mon, 21 Oct 2002 18:38:59 +0200
X-No-Spam: whitelist

Danny:

Not to sound like an attorney, but there is no contractual requirement
that registrars or registries participate in the DNSO, or its processes.
Regardless of the level of participation by either registrars or
registries, such action or inaction does not waive the contractual
rights contained in their contracts. Although I will work on a more
detailed response to your questions below during my flight to China, I
wanted to give you some quick answers.

Question 1: The Registrar Constituency hase had a sort of revolving door
of representation in the Whois task force. Although Paul Kane was an
initial registrar advocate we have had several representatives serving
on this Task Force: Philip, Ken and Tim. Although some people may find
this hard to believe, but registrars do have businesses to run and they
are not always able to devote the necessary resources to play in the
DNSO's policy sandbox that other people seem to have. I think Ross has
been doing a good job of advocating the registrar position on the
Transfer's Task Force. However, as I previously noted as the final
recommendations become clearer there is a growing number of registrars
expressing concern about certain recommendations. I do not believe that
the registrars nor the registries are trying to force the Task Force
back to square one. All I believe they are trying to do is ensure that
their contractual safeguards are preserved. 

Question 2: The Executive Committee delegates the responsibilities of
representing the registrars viewpoints to specific representatives. They
periodically report to the constituency and the executive committee on
their progress. When a final report is available it is put forth to the
constituency for a vote. Unlike other constituencies that fail to
delegate responsibilities to other members, I do not specifically know
what has or has not been stated to the Task Forces. All I know is what
has been communicated to me via email, in person meetings,
teleconferences, etc. Not all communication within the registrar
constituency occurs on the listserv. 

Question 3: I cannot say with certainty why registrar come to me. Maybe
because I tend to listen and recommend a reasonable and prudent course
of action based upon the facts and the binding contracts. Registrars and
registries may chose to contact Louis because he is the general counsel
of ICANN and registrars and registries have contracts with ICANN.
Speaking for myself, I contacted Steve Metalitz and raised a number of
concerns regarding some of the initial recommendations in an earlier
Whois draft report. This was followed up with some discussions with my
registry counterparts. Based upon this discussion I am writing a formal
response to the Whois Task Force showing what I believe is serious
fundamental flaws in the report, as well as potential recommendations
for moving forward with a solution to the problem. 

I guess one of the biggest reasons why people choose not to actively
participate in the DNSO processes is that there is so much noise on the
task force and mailing lists, that they prefer to sit back and rely upon
the contracts they entered into in good faith. The same contracts that
allow them to employ people, pay rent and taxes, etc. I know this is
definitely not the answer you were looking for but it is part of the
reality we live in.

Best regards,

Mike






-----Original Message-----
From: DannyYounger@cs.com [mailto:DannyYounger@cs.com]
Sent: Monday, October 21, 2002 10:27 AM
To: michael@palage.com; touton@icann.org
Cc: ga@dnso.org
Subject: Re: [ga] Legal Briefing


Michael,

You are doubtless aware that I hold no particular fondness for the Task
Force 
concept which serves to limit participation rather than encouraging 
participation and substantive contributions.  We again now find
ourselves at 
a point where after initial recommendations have been made, those that 
haven't had a chance to participate in the policy development process
now 
take issue with the recommendations studiously developed by their peers 
(bringing us back to square one).  

While you have called for the rejection of the WHOIS Task Force interim 
recommendations deeming them to be inconsistent with ICANN???s existing 
contractual obligations, a violation of ICANN???s mission and core
values, in 
conflict with existing technical and market realities, and constituting
a 
treat to the stability of the Internet, I would note that the registrar 
constituency does indeed have a representative assigned to the WHOIS
Task 
Force, Ken Stubbs, and that I am not aware of any such issues being
raised by 
Ken on the Task Force Discussion List.

This raises the following questions:

1.  Why aren't members of the registrar constituency following the
policy 
development process within the TF, interacting with their 
representative-of-record on the Task Force, and instructing him to post
their 
comments to the list for consideration by other stakeholders prior to
the 
publication of an Interim Report?
2.  Why hasn't your representative raised such issues for discussion on
the 
TF list if they indeed are of the magnitude that you describe and are of
such 
great concern to the constituency?
3.  Why do your members find it necessary to go straight to either
yourself 
or to ICANN staff with their complaints and concerns rather than going
to 
their TF representative so that issues might be addressed in mutual 
consultation prior to arriving at what is now the Interim Report stage?

What I am seeing is more of an attempt to derail a process than to
cooperate 
within the process itself.  Constantly going back to square one serves 
nobody's interests.  If the process itself is flawed, then perhaps we
need to 
take another hard look at the process and consider appropriate changes
before 
we again head down this profitless road, but acting to do no more than
trash 
the work of others that have diligently cooperated for well over a year
to 
arrive at recommendations is not the best possible way forward.

Best regards,
Danny

--
This message was passed to you via the ga@dnso.org list.
Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

----- End forwarded message -----