[Gnso-epdp-team] Factual studies starting to shoot down the "going dark" panic
Mueller, Milton L
milton at gatech.edu
Thu Sep 6 17:27:04 UTC 2018
There is a deeper problem with Piscatello’s reaction to our Aug 29 blog post. Read the title of that blog ("Special interests push U.S. Congress to override ICANN’s Whois policy process") and the article and it’s obvious that our primary point is not the relationship between Whois and spam.
Our point was to call attention to the efforts by some stakeholders to bypass the ICANN process and impose a U.S.-national legislative solution on ICANN.
It’s interesting that Piscatello doesn’t address this. How about you? Do you care about whether the work we are doing will be pre-empted and nullified by US legislation? Do you think it is in bad faith to participate in this PDP seeking consensus and compromise from other stakeholder groups and at the same time pursue legislative action by the USG that would impose your own view upon the MS process?
From: Gnso-epdp-team [mailto:gnso-epdp-team-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Ben Butler
Sent: Thursday, September 6, 2018 12:16 PM
To: gnso-epdp-team at icann.org
Subject: Re: [Gnso-epdp-team] Factual studies starting to shoot down the "going dark" panic
Some additional views / points made by Dave Piscatello formerly of ICANN org via http://www.securityskeptic.com/2018/09/post-gdpr-whois-a-myriad-of-misconceptions-misinformation-and-misdirection.html
As Benedict mentions… it’s just too soon to say.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Gnso-epdp-team