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

[Mawaki Chango <ki_chango@xxxxxxxxx>]

Marilyn,

what do you mean by this: "On the discussion of the
interpretation of Formulation 1, I am not convinced that the
Council has discussed and accepted the broader definition." Is
it that Bruce's (so far tentative) interpretation you're calling
"broader definition," or do you mean the Council have to discuss
again before accepting the result of the vote (which was not for
the broader definition; but on the other hand you can't be
talking about accepting the rejected formulation, so I'm
confused)? Please clarify.

Mawaki

--- Marilyn Cade <marilynscade@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> Bruce,
> 
> Thanks for another round at simplifying the motion. However,
> this version
> loses the important commitment to engage in dialogue with the
> GAC and SSAC. 
> I prefer to have the motion include the reference to the work
> of the GAC and
> the Council on examining and discussing the purpose and uses
> of WHOIS.  So,
> I'd prefer to see that segment put back into the motion. 
> 
> The motion below asks some of the Councilors to state what
> they think the
> formulation 1 means and why they supported it. I am not
> inclined to oppose
> that segment of the motion, but ask, for clarification:  What
> do we intend,
> as Council, to do with this new information from Councilors?
> How will it be
> used? Is it additional information to inform Council's
> discussions, or is it
> to assist the TF in improving clarity of where the Councilors
> views are? 
> 
> 
> On a broader note, the interpretation of Formulation 1 that
> you presented to
> the joint GAC/Council meeting on Monday that I saw in the
> PowerPoint later,
> appears to address some of the concerns of the BC, if indeed,
> Formulation 1
> is inclusive of the needs that we see for public access to the
> data to
> support the concerns and needs of ISPs, business users,
> trademark interests,
> consumer protection and law enforcement. 
> 
> Since it was presented to the GAC, and is a part of the
> documentation of
> that joint meeting, I'd like to clarify, within Council, what
> its status, if
> any, is. And to establish if we have broad Council acceptance
> of that
> interpretation. I think that is important to assist both
> Council and the TF.
> 
> 
> To recap: 
> 
> On the revised motion, I prefer to see the reference to the
> joint
> GAC/Council work included.
> 
> On the discussion of the interpretation of Formulation 1, I am
> not convinced
> that the Council has discussed and accepted the broader
> definition. I think
> we need to know where we are. 
>