[gnso-rds-pdp-wg] Who is in charge? (was Re: Why the thin data is necessary)]

[Michael Peddemors]

On 17-06-08 08:10 AM, John Horton wrote:
> That said, and with full respect and appreciation for the EWG's work, I
> strongly oppose the EWG report, and for those who want to know the
> reasons (and are willing to slog through a critical analysis of it), I
> encourage you to review my 2013 letter
> <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/input-to-ewg/attachments/20130823/410038bb/LegitScriptCommentsonICANNEWGWhoisReplacementStructure-0001.pdf> to
> the EWG, which admittedly was based on the Initial Report (not Final
> Report), but all of my reasons still hold as the Final Report still
> contained, generally at least, the same elements even if the wording
> changed a bit. We don't have to accept the EWG report, and my personal
> view is that it should be rejected by our group because:

Could that be added to the survey/vote chuck?

Sorry, but this last couple of days has turned into two camps throwing 
rocks over the fence at each other..

This doesn't seem like something for the working group.. Positions have 
been made clear.. but the arguments about the why parties want to be 
anonymous, and any allegations that it is simply a smoke screen for them 
to be able to harbour illicit actors, vs real privacy considerations, 
well maybe this isn't for the working group to discuss.

Maybe a court action claiming an actor (eg registrar) is complicit in 
allowing criminal activity be launched, and then have another party file 
a counter suit based on privacy, and let it go up to the supreme court 
and let THEM decide whether privacy trumps security..

I don't think it is this working group's role to even try to make those 
decisions.

This is about whether to recommend a replacement to whois, and if so 
what form it should take. And we have gotten far off topic on that..

Personally, the existing technology works.. and just because allegations 
of privacy problems exist, and no confirmation on how substantive these 
allegations are, or even whether this is a substantive issue enough to 
justify another 'new method', it's costs, complexities, and impact on 
the existing internet.

But again, that is a side note.. this group is supposed to layout 'what' 
should such a replacement best look like, IF an alternative is deemed 
necessary at all.

It 'could' be that the recommended replacement is actually the same as 
the existing, but with agreed on ways to address the issues that 
escalated in the idea of the formation of this working group in the 
first place.

Chuck, maybe another list called 'wg-battleground' could be started 
though for those that enjoy the rock throwing, or who the time to read 
all the arguments, and bring back to the working group any 
nuggets/conclusions that have merit in the discussion.

Sorry, way to much to keep up on, so going silent for a week or so..


-- 
"Catch the Magic of Linux..."
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Peddemors, President/CEO LinuxMagic Inc.
Visit us at http://www.linuxmagic.com @linuxmagic
------------------------------------------------------------------------
A Wizard IT Company - For More Info http://www.wizard.ca
"LinuxMagic" a Registered TradeMark of Wizard Tower TechnoServices Ltd.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
604-682-0300 Beautiful British Columbia, Canada

This email and any electronic data contained are confidential and intended
solely for the use of the individual or entity to which they are addressed.
Please note that any views or opinions presented in this email are solely
those of the author and are not intended to represent those of the company.