Re: [ga] Privacy Brainstorming

[Jeff Williams <jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com>]

Ross and all former DNSO GA members or other interested parties,

  I can sympathize with your suggestion here.  It has been tried
as I would think you already know or knew.  ???  In any event
the GAC is frequently not reachable, unresponsive most of the time,
and the GAC "Representatives" are not the choices of the
"Regions" in which they are supposed to present, i.e. were not
elected by the active/aware participants in their region.

  Another problem, but not a show stopper is that the GAC is frequently,
as in almost each time that they have provided advice, ignored by the
ICANN BOD and staff, as well as most of the constituencies.

  And the final problem that has been expressed in the not too distant
past is the accessibility (E-Mail/Phone) of those GAC "Appointed"
representatives is very bad or nonexistent...

Ross Wm. Rader wrote:

> Thomas,
>
> Thanks for your offer to accept further thoughts about whois data privacy
> for your brainstorming session.
>
> Some observations and a proposal.
>
> Registrant privacy is a right that we must start to take more seriously.
> Also note that this is not simply a European or American issue. There are
> hundreds of privacy jurisdictions that we would need to consider and
> rationalize if we take some of the approaches that have been put forward
> recently.
>
> Rather, let me propose instead that we examine policy and technical
> mechanisms that will allow for local policy to track up through the
> international system. It has been done elsewhere and it can be done here.
> Further, there is no reason to delay in this discovery[1]. These will not be
> trivial variables to solve for - we should start immediately.
>
> Lastly, lets not forget that the GAC is part of ICANN. Rather than drawing
> in "this agency" or "that commission", which will only result in us being
> distracted by the various local agenda, lets reach-out to our GAC colleagues
> and let them tell us where we need to pay special attention and what care we
> need to take to respect their local laws. This isn't so much about
> compromise as it is about cooperation and building consensus on solutions
> that will benefit the community over the long-term. Attempting to craft
> policy based on the immediate political objectives of any of the factions
> will not get us where we need to be.
>
> Best regards,
>
>                      -rwr
>
> [1] I can forward you some further thoughts on the specific mechanisms, but
> I think its more important at this point to identify who has requirements
> and what they are rather than trying to design a specific mechanism that
> *might* hit the mark. Who has requirements you say? Lets start with
> Registrants, Intermediates (registrars/resellers), Registries and lastly,
> data users/consumers.
>
> Got Blog? http://www.byte.org
>
> "People demand freedom of speech as a compensation for the freedom of
> thought which they seldom use."
>  - Soren Kierkegaard
>
> --
> 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

Regards,

--
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 129k members/stakeholders strong!)
================================================================
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com
Contact Number: 214-244-4827 or 214-244-3801


--
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