Re: [ga] Re: Privacy Working Group

["Richard Henderson" <richardhenderson@ntlworld.com>]

Dear Vint

It is understandable that our busy lives overtake schedules sometimes (I
know mine does!) and you cannot act as a one-man show... we all have a part
to play in the development of policy. It does seem that ICANN at present
must be seriously understaffed, because there are other issues that have not
yet been dealt with. The Registry NewTLD Evaluation Reports (required by the
ICANN-Registrar Agreement) still seem to be unavailable to the various
constituencies who may wish to engage in *informed* participation in the
NewTLD Evaluations - an important issue, given the worldwide interest and
debate on the release of further New TLDs. According to the Agreement
Appendix U, almost all of these reports from the Registries should have been
available by May of last year (some even sooner). When I asked Stuart about
this in the summer, he explained that staff had "not had time to put the
reports online". (I asked him again in the autumn and again on Dec30th but
they still haven't had time, or so it seems.)

Your own personal commitments I understand because we are all human and have
complex lives to lead. However, on an issue which impacts on the whole world
(decisions about further TLDs, lessons to be learned etc) I believe the
staff should have *made* time to put these reports online.

If ICANN can afford $32,000 for ALAC members to fly to Rio (an initiative
that most At Large members oppose anyway), I suggest that the money would
have been better spent on an additional staff member to help the
organisation catch up on its backlog.

The ALAC is a *top down* imposed initiative, with *top down* unelected
participants. On the other hand, ICANN claims to encourage informed *bottom
up* participation. If that participation is genuinely to be informed, then
data which the Agreement made perfectly clear was to be available for
release, should not be withheld - or delayed because ICANN can't find
someone to FTP the reports up onto your website.

If I was a conspiracist, I would imagine that either Afilias or Neulevel
simply failed to provide the mandatory data, and ICANN has just hoped the
matter would be overlooked. On the other hand, you yourself assured me
otherwise last year, Vint, when you suggested that ICANN needed to
double-check the material and check with the Registries that it was all OK
to publish. As the Agreement stated in advance that the data could be made
available to others, I failed to see that the Registries would have included
anything confidential (unless they didn't understand their own agreements).

I guess it comes back to workload again. But ICANN's management *must* be
responsible for ensuring that funds and staffing are sufficient to do the
tasks involved in administering this vital world resource.

While you are instructing your staff to get this done , perhaps you could
kindly ask Mr Halloran to reply to the mail I sent him over 290 days ago,
which raised matters of fraud and serious concern, and which he has not even
bothered to acknowledge.

When, please, can we hope to see the NewTLD Evaluation Reports from the
Registries?

If it would help, send them to me, and I'll put them online for you.

Yrs,

Richard Henderson

----- Original Message -----
From: vinton g. cerf <vinton.g.cerf@wcom.com>
To: <DannyYounger@cs.com>
Cc: <ga@dnso.org>
Sent: Thursday, February 20, 2003 5:35 PM
Subject: [ga] Re: Privacy Working Group


> Hi Danny,
>
> to be honest I haven't made a lot of progress (mostly just a consequence
of
> being overloaded and traveling 80% of my time), but it is definitely on
the
> agenda and I know that Andy Mueller-Maguhn is quite interested in pursuing
> this topic. So thanks for the poke.
>
> vint
>
> At 12:17 PM 2/20/2003 -0500, DannyYounger@cs.com wrote:
> >Dear Vint,
> >
> >At the Shanghai session the Board approved the following:
> >
> >Whereas, the ICANN Board wishes to consider whether it should establish
an
> >advisory committee addressing issues of privacy within ICANN's mission
and
> >responsibilities;
> >
> >Resolved [02.130] that the Chairman of the Board is requested to form a
> >working group of directors to investigate, including appropriate
consultation
> >with the community, the possible role or roles of an advisory committee
on
> >privacy, to propose a possible charter for such a committee, and to
develop a
> >proposal for the Board's consideration including a recommendation for the
> >structure and composition of such a committee.
> >
> >Can you comment on the progress being made to establish this privacy
advisory
> >committee?
> >
> >Best wishes,
> >Danny Younger
>
> Vint Cerf
> SVP Architecture & Technology
> WorldCom
> 22001 Loudoun County Parkway, F2-4115
> Ashburn, VA 20147
> 703 886 1690 (v806 1690)
> 703 886 0047 fax
>
> --
> 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
>
>

--
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