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

[Mawaki Chango <ki_chango@xxxxxxxxx>]

Marilyn,
thanks God you are fine; I would appreciate if you could answer
my question to you below. With anticipation, thanks.

Mawaki

--- Mawaki Chango <ki_chango@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> 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. 
> > 
> 
>