[council] Compromise wording on WHOIS

["Philip Sheppard" <philip.sheppard@xxxxxx>]

Ross, Council members
 
The question
----------------
I make no apology for changing the question.
The TF failed to come up with an answer to the question posed, so this does 
suggest it might
have been the wrong one in the first place.
Evidence for this assertion is all around us. If one reads the argumentation in 
the TF
report from those in favour of formulation 1 or 2, it is clear many favour one 
option or the
other based on issues of data use.
It is the question of use that divides us.  We cannot escape addressing this 
issue.
 
The objective
------------------
If Council accepts that use by law enforcement or other parties pursuing 
objectives of
user/consumer protection is an objective we endorse, then we MUST agree to 
define the
"purpose for which data is collected". Without that such use contravenes most 
data
protection laws. This is the issue.

The blind alley
--------------------
Defining WHOIS purpose based on its historic technical context may be a 
statement of fact
but it does nothing to enlighten the WHOIS issues that have been aired over the 
last 5
years.
That is our task. Not restating the past.
Formulation 1 is an historic truth, conveniently devoid of today's issue.
Formulation 2 was attempting to recognise today's issue but used fuzzy language.
My compromise seeks to focus the language more specifically on the issue.


Philip