<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
Re: [council] Proposed motion on WHOIS
I must add my voice to this suggestion by Ross and Norbert.
As someone who woke up at 3am today to be in the GNSO call, but was not
able to hear the discussion to participate in it, I feel at a real
disadvantage in understanding what is happening in Marrakesh.
It seems like those who were unhappy with the outcome of the whois vote
are now trying to undo the vote. This seems quite irregular and
inappropriate.
Robin
Norbert Klein wrote:
Dear Council,
Dear Bruce,
I would like to add my voice to the suggestion by Ross. Though I was
in Marrakesh for the time of Saturday to Monday and am aware of the
many statements which came and come in, I think your proposal is
introducing new procedures ("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")
which are totally absent from any normal democratic election procedure
I know. I consider this as an attempt to abolish or at least to
discredit an validly achieved decision by the council.
I am not against normal Council procedures to clarify, if anything has
to be clarified - e.g. the wrong interpretations that the decision
taken (I am not speaking any longer about formula 1 or 2, but only
about the decision we took) would exclude the possibility of law
enforcement agencies to act, according to existing valid laws.
If the laws are considered by somebody to be not sufficient, it is a
question for the legislative bodies of involved countries to act - it
is not a question for the Council, or for GAC, to do something
similar, as if we would have the authority to handle legislation.
Norbert
=
Ross Rader wrote:
I'd note that there is a 15 minute delay between the sending of this
motion and the receipt of it. Coupled with the telephonic
difficulties, I have been completely unable to follow this discussion.
As previously requested, I'd like to reiterate my request to take no
action on this question until we've all had time to consider the
inputs and potential implications.
Bruce Tonkin wrote:
Proposed Motion
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:
One: 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.
Two: the ICANN staff will provide a summary of the other
interpretations
of the definition that have been expressed by the community and
Governments.
Three: the Council will undertake a dialogue with the GAC and SSAC on
developing a broadly understandable definition of the purposes for
which
the current data required in the RRA is collected.
Four: 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.
Five: The GNSO Council will take the final report from the WHOIS task
force that addresses all terms of reference, and the definition of
purpose of collecting data derived from the dialogue with the GAC and
SSAC, and consider improving the wording of the WHOIS service
definition
so that it is broadly understandable.
The GNSO Council notes that the current 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.
Regards,
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|