ICANN/GNSO GNSO Email List Archives

[council]

<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

Re: [council] Proposed simplified WHOIS motion for 20 July 2006

Hi,

I think this is an improvement, as I thought the last paragraph was confusing and opened up more questions problems then it answered or resolved.

I must, however, say, that I do not understand the point of even the simplified motion. Why do we want a motion to this effect? What will it improve? I am not arguing against it, I just can't really see the point of it.

In terms of the first bullet, I think knowing the thoughts behind each of our votes can only serve to make things more confusing. We voted on the language of prop 1, which as is often (if not always) the case, had different nuances for each person. It will be very difficult for any of us to write something precise enough to explain those nuances without introducing new terms which we also would have different meanings for. If we have different meanings, then I am afraid it will actually serve to obviate the original vote and will serve as a way to work around that vote. Personally this is something I don't wish to see happen.

The second point seems reasonable, but do we need a motion to ask the staff to summarize the content of the input we have received? If we do need such a motion to get an analysis of submitted documents, then, in my opinion, this point is worth voting on.

On the third point, the members of the task force already represent constituencies, for the most part, and I am sure they are already taking input into account - difficult not to. Some may even be encouraging some of the input, which is also a good thing. And though I do think it is good to tell the TF to keep working without letting themselves be distracted by the sound and fury, but do we need a motion to do this? Also, should the TF wait for the staff summarization requested in bullet 2? Do we need to give them guidance on this point?

On the fourth point, of course we will consider the TF's report and I guess will reconsider any of the definitions or recommendations, but again I don't see the point in saying something that is true whether it is said in a motion or left unsaid.

As I say, I don't see the point behind this motion.

thanks

a.


On 17 jul 2006, at 23.16, Bruce Tonkin wrote:

Hello All,

Further to my previous motion, here is a simplified motion that is
constrained to matters concerning the WHOIS service.

Regards,
Bruce Tonkin



Proposed Simplified Motion on WHOIS

The GNSO Council notes that the current WHOIS definition is related to
the service that provides public access to some or all of the data
collected, and is not a definition of the purpose of the data itself.

In response to the extensive community and Government input on the
definition of the purpose of WHOIS, the GNSO Council agrees to undertake
the following steps:

(1) Each Council member that voted in favour of the definition will
provide a brief explanation of the reason for supporting the resolution
and their understanding of its meaning.

(2) The ICANN staff will provide a summary of the other interpretations
of the definition that have been expressed during the public comment
period, and subsequently in correspondence from the public and
Governments.

(3) The GNSO Council requests that the WHOIS task force continue with
their work as specified in the terms of reference taking into account
the recent input that has been provided.

(4) The GNSO Council will take the final report from the WHOIS task
force that addresses all terms of reference, and consider improving the
wording of the WHOIS service definition so that it is broadly
understandable.




<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>