Re: [dow2tf] Whois tf 2: Draft section 2.4

[KathrynKL@xxxxxxx]

Steve: thanks for the revisions.  As for the introduction paragraphs, at the 
risk of a collective TF2 groan, I think we should definitely include the 
substance of the arguments raised regarding collection of this data.  You mentioned 
that we could include two one-sided views.  It is my hope that we can reach 
one fairly neutral overview of the comments, as we have done in the other 
sections.

As for Buttarelli's discussion in Rome, it was, alas, a problem.  He was 
invited long before the meeting, and did not respond until we were actually in 
Rome.  Even then details were not confirmed until late the day before (at which 
time signs were made and posted; people were buttonholded).  But the meeting 
did take place in the Press Room, with representatives of a number of 
constituencies present, and it was reported in the National Journal among other 
publications.  So it can't be off the record, because it wasn't.  But I agree that 
quoting the Article 29 Working Group paper and other written sources is a good 
way to approach his views.

K


Regarding your four introductory paragraphs --- we have two options, it seems 
to 
> me.  We could provide links to the submissions and responses to 
> questionnaires, and to the constituency statements, 
> http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/tf2-survey/ and 
> http://www.gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/dow2tf/msg00202.html respectively, so that the reader could  explore for herself 
> the basis for our finding that there was no consensus.  This is what I have 
> done in the attached draft.  Alternatively, I could prepare a one-sided 
> summary of the submissions that called for preserving and/or expanding the 
> existing data elements, to supplement the one-sided summary of the opposing view 
> that you have drafted.  I think the first alternative is more efficient but if 
> you feel strongly about it I have no problem pursuing the second alternative.  
> Please let us know what you think. 
>