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

[Mawaki Chango <ki_chango@xxxxxxxxx>]

Totally agree!

--- Ross Rader <ross@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> 
> I think it would be politically useful if this motion
> contained a 
> reference to the other motion (formerly clause 3) that you
> removed from 
> this for scope purposes. It need only be referential and
> something along 
> the lines of "The GNSO Council will undertake the
> implementation of an 
> additional work plan designed to better understand the needs
> of 
> governments, via the GAC, related to the development of an 
> understandable definition of the minimum purposes...etc.."
> 
> The reason for this would be to ensure that our intent
> regarding these 
> initiatives remains very clear: i.e. that we are still
> committed to 
> working to understand the broad range of issues, resolving
> outstanding 
> existing Whois policy questions, etc. regardless of what
> definition of 
> scope they fall under. Bootstrapping this work inside this
> motion will 
> help those following along from home better understand our
> work by 
> providing clear line of sight to the additional work items
> this ongoing 
> discussion has spawned. My fear is that simply dropping this
> language 
> entirely without explanation may be unduly confusing for
> anyone but the 
> insiders. Any steps we can take to share a clear plan forward
> with our 
> stakeholders and other concerned and interested parties will
> definitely 
> make our job easier in the coming months.
> 
> 
> Regards,
> 
> -- 
> 
>                         -ross rader
>                          general manager,
>                          domain direct/netidentity/nameplanet
> 
> Have you checked out the NetIdentity/Nameplanet Weblog?
> http://netidentity.weblog.info
>