[gnso-dow123] Re: [council] Regarding Letter from American Intellectual Property Law Association

[Anthony Harris]

Ross,

It seems I must thank you again, this
time for confirming my words on attitude
and civility!

Kind regards

Tony Harris

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Ross Rader" <ross at tucows.com>
To: "Anthony Harris" <harris at cabase.org.ar>
Cc: "Council GNSO" <council at gnso.icann.org>; <gnso-dow123 at gnso.icann.org>
Sent: Thursday, June 22, 2006 12:15 PM
Subject: Re: [gnso-dow123] Re: [council] Regarding Letter from American 
Intellectual Property Law Association


> Anthony Harris wrote:
>
>> The core business of operators can hardly revolve around what happens
>> to WHOIS, no one ever stated that. WHOIS information is but one
>> useful resource that we see no need to hide or do away with it. It is
>> comforting to see that you are vigilant over our website and it's 
>> contents.
>> There is work in progress going on there.
>
> The "we" you speak of and the "work in progress" are directly related. I 
> tried to go to your website to confirm whether or not any of the hosting 
> companies and ISPs I work with are listed in your membership. Instead, I 
> found a list of members containing dead people, defunct organizations and 
> an admonishment that the ISPCP website was offline. If this is the "we" 
> that you speak of, I'm not sure that there's much more conversation to be 
> had.
>
>
>> OK they are entitled to have a different viewpoint, and so?
>
> ...and so, you mentioned that you have yet to meet an operator whose 
> interests are served by formulation 1. I mentioned that I knew many of 
> them and would be happy to make an introduction if you thought it would be 
> helpful. My offer still stands.
>
>> This is a complete misrepresentation of fact. The ISPCP never refused
>> to consider alternatives to unfettered access to WHOIS data. The
>> subject of tiered access began to be discussed quite some time ago in
>> the TF (possibly you were not around at that time), and was put aside
>> for later work, we did not oppose tiered access as a concept.
>
> Hmmm. Perhaps I'm confused then. The ISPCP constituency (such as it is) 
> formal submission to the Whois Task Force pretty explicitly states that 
> "The ISPCP believes that regardless of the vast growth of the number of 
> domain registrations, some core principles should remain unchanged, and 
> ready access to all Whois data is one such principle."
>
> This is a pretty categorical statement and I'm hard pressed to reconcile 
> the need for "ready access to all Whois data" with the more restrictive 
> data access methods in the various Tiered Access proposals.
>
>
>> I fail to see how highlighting a rather evident fact is equivalent to 
>> speaking
>> out of context, it rather helps to see what we are talking about in the 
>> midst
>> of all the noise...I did not know you said this, but thanks for the 
>> confirmation!
>> Your actions speak for themselves, my opinion is unimportant. The OPOC
>> solution is a pretty lame suggestion, fully in context with the 
>> Formulation 1
>> which you successfully voted through. And thanks for confirming the
>> 'technical solutions proposed are not practical, nor affordable' with 
>> regards
>> to tiered access. And by the way it is not that particular approach that 
>> is 'too
>> agressive', but your continuous vehemence and intolerance which at least 
>> I
>> find unacceptable.
>>
>
> Stick your ad hominem in your back pocket where it belongs.
>
> I'm not disappointed to hear you characterize the registrar OPOC proposal 
> as lame, but I am disappointed, again, with your stark refusal to make any 
> sort of substantive submission that might help better the proposal. We 
> have heard time and time again about everything that the ISPCP, BCUC and 
> IPC don't like, but we rarely, if ever hear, about how we can improve the 
> substantive proposals made in a manner that might be more acceptable to 
> all involved. This is the advocacy problem that I speak of. If the OPOC 
> proposal is indeed lame, stop talking about it and instead, devote some of 
> your rhetorical energy towards writing down a counter-proposal that we can 
> consider. In other words, participate in the process or get out of the 
> way.
>
> Regarding my statement concerning the costs of tiered access, they are 
> related to implementation of the new CRISP/IRIS protocol, the new 
> compliance, authorization and credentialling programs that go along with 
> it and the mass migration from the existing, simpler, WHOIS protocol that 
> would need to occur. The OPOC proposal is an attempt to implement tiered 
> access within the current environment (i.e. continue to provide law 
> enforcement and government agency interests with an extremely broad 
> dataset, provide other users with a more limited, but more useful 
> dataset).
>
>> You are quite right, there is nothing cooperative about the current TF or 
>> the
>> GNSO's policy development process. I would simply reply that you have
>> described, in utter perfection, the attitudes you express in your 
>> frequent
>> interventions, and your total unwillingness to accept disagreement with 
>> your
>> positions. If little progress has been made, I would not deny you your
>> ample share of the credit.
>
> Again with the ad hominem Tony. I would have expected more from an elected 
> representative to the GNSO Council. Perhaps manners and grace aren't part 
> of the eligibility requirements in the ISPCP election process - if there 
> is one.
>
>
>> It is a falsity that outreach was made to, at least, our constituency.
>> In fact, as you may recall in Luxembourg I attempted this, and was
>> rewarded later with a document containing......the OPOC !
>
> Fine. I'm happy to live with your more curious version of events - I'm not 
> sure that it matters one whit either. It is a well known fact that the 
> OPOC proposal was first published shortly after Mar del Plata after having 
> been drafted by a group of registrars that during the Argentine meeting. 
> It is a lesser known fact that there was a meeting between the ISPCP and a 
> group of Registrars in Luxembourg as you point out. If I recall, we 
> discussed the issue of contactability and other matters - all principles 
> that the "lame" OPOC proposal espouses. It is also a well-established fact 
> that this same proposal has been modified many, many times based on input 
> from interested stakeholders in the registry, registrar, non-commercial 
> and other communities. I'd be happy to amend it further based on input 
> from yours, which I why I will continue to reiterate the question I have 
> been incessantly asking of you and others that seem to staunchly opposed 
> to progress:
>
> "How can the existing proposals that have been tabled be changed so that 
> they are suitable for the needs of the stakeholders you represent?"
>
> Regards,
>
> -- 
>
>                        -rr
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>                 "Don't be too timid and squeamish about your actions.
>                                            All life is an experiment.
>                             The more experiments you make the better."
>                         - Ralph Waldo Emerson
>
>
> Contact Info:
>
> Ross Rader
> Director, Research & Innovation
> Tucows Inc.
> t. 416.538.5492
> c. 416.828.8783
>
> Get Started: http://start.tucows.com
> My Blogware: http://www.byte.org
>
>