<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40">
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=us-ascii">
<meta name="Generator" content="Microsoft Word 15 (filtered medium)">
<style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math";
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:#0563C1;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:#954F72;
text-decoration:underline;}
pre
{mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:"HTML Preformatted Char";
margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Courier New";}
span.EmailStyle17
{mso-style-type:personal-compose;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:windowtext;}
span.HTMLPreformattedChar
{mso-style-name:"HTML Preformatted Char";
mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:"HTML Preformatted";
font-family:"Courier New";}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}
@page WordSection1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></style><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]-->
</head>
<body lang="EN-US" link="#0563C1" vlink="#954F72">
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal">MM here reporting from the further reaches of the policy committee.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">So here as far as I can tell is the only response I have seen on the debate between models 3 and 2b in the PC:<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Courier New";color:black">>I will try to get the revised comments on the models that have been
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Courier New";color:black">>submitted in before I run for the plane at 2 EDT...but that may not
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Courier New";color:black">>happen. The legal analysis will come next week, it is a lot harder and
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Courier New";color:black">>more complex....but I want to get my questions on the table. It will be
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Courier New";color:black">>a long time before this is over....<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Courier New";color:black">><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Courier New";color:black">>We need to endorse the ECO model very strongly, in my view. While
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Courier New";color:black">>option 3 looks good, it is rather unworkable.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">WHY is model 3 “unworkable?” No explanation provided. In fact this is the inverse of the truth: Model 2b is literally and provably unworkable because it requires ICANN to set up a system of certification in a matter of 3 months, which
everyone should be able to see is unworkable. Insofar as such an “interim” solution gets done in such an unworkably short period of time, it will only happen if it is dictated unilaterally by ICANN staff.
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Folks, we have spent the last _<i>15 years</i>_ trying to get something like model 3 as a privacy-respecting approach to Whois, and now that it is within our grasp, I cannot believe that people we thought were privacy advocates are telling
us it is “unworkable.” WTF? Why is anyone in NCSG trying to get us trapped into an interim solution that will be dictated behind the scenes by special interests and will allow trademark lawyers and LEAs all kinds of loopholes to get access to Whois data that
they shouldn’t have? This “interim” solution will almost certainly become a permanent one. If we have learned anything about how icANN works.
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Any sincere believers in model 2b should accept reality and say let’s do Model 3 in the short term and then work out a viable certification system long term.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Right now, let us cohere behind model 3 it is both the right solution and our strongest bargaining position heading into the future.
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Dr. Milton L. Mueller<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Professor, School of Public Policy<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Georgia Institute of Technology<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
</body>
</html>