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

["Marilyn Cade" <marilynscade@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Thanks, Mawaki.

Sorry, didn't mean to be confusing. I appreciate your asking. 

Here's my understanding of the situation regarding the 'interpretation' via
PowerPoint.  There was a PowerPoint created by Bruce, in an effort to help
to inform the discussion with the GAC/Council, that further explained some
key points and also provided an interpretation that all the 'functions'
presently supported by the uses of WHOIS are possible under Formulation 1. 

The Council earlier voted to support Formulation 1, which I take to be a too
narrow formulation, and I voted against that Formulation. 

Given the vote of Council, the TF was given back Formulation 1. Since that
time, there has been discussion, and debate about what Formulation 1 means,
and what Formulation 2 means. 

Bruce, acting as chair, has attempted to provide guidance and improve the
understanding of the Council on what was meant -- e.g. the interpretation of
what Formulation 1. He provided a PowerPoint to the joint Council and GAC
meeting that essentially says that under Formulation 1, that the functions
that my constituency (BC) believe are necessary, are supportable under
Formulation 1. 

That to me is a 'interpretation' of Formulation 1. 

My question is : Is Bruce's interpretation, now in the said PowerPoint the
agreed position of the Council?  

You can imagine that given my Constituency's interests, views, and needs,
that we want and support a broader interpretation. However, I respect that
it is important to have agreement with other Councilors and achieve as much
agreement on what is meant and supporter, or not, as possible. 

For example, members of the GAC saw the PowerPoint and may view the
interpretation, since it had the chair's name and title on it, as Council
perspective.

Again, I am in support of a broader interpretation. However, respecting that
others are not/may not be, I seek to avoid disappointment and disharmony by
misunderstandings. 

"we" may be in disagreement -- but it is best if "we" know what we disagree
about, and agree about.  :-)

Bruce's invitation to those to who supported Formulation 1 may be one way to
allow people to be clearer about whether they supported the broader
interpretation. 

What is clear to me is that we have more work to do at Council, and after
reading the second motion that Bruce has drafted, with staff input/Assistant
GC input, I am inclined to think that does a good job of capturing the work
needed, including the consultation and interaction needed with all the
Advisory Committees. 

I still think we need to address and recognize the need also to interact
with the other SOs on this topic.  

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On
Behalf Of Mawaki Chango
Sent: Wednesday, July 19, 2006 11:16 AM
To: Council GNSO
Subject: RE: [council] Proposed simplified WHOIS motion for 20 July 2006

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. 
> > 
> 
>