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

[Ross Rader <ross@xxxxxxxxxx>]

I'm not sure that Bruce's interpretation, or Council's interpretation 
really has much bearing on the policy issues. The question is whether or 
not specific uses of whois will be permitted by the relevant policy. 
Under current policy, a number of uses are permitted, and others (such 
as marketing) are not. I don't believe that we can adequately answer 
this question with any degree of certainty until such time that we have 
draft policy on the books to test these various use cases against.
I think we need to refocus slightly on the development of this policy 
and away from this statement of purpose. If it turns out that the 
statement of purpose does not adequately support the new policy required 
by the community, we can easily revisit and refine the purpose. From my 
distant view over the last month, the attempt to understand the 
implications of the purpose of whois net of any substantive policy 
recommendations does not seem to have been a productive exercise. I may 
be wrong with this assessment, but I'm hard-pressed to find any serious 
progress on this particular point going as far back as Wellington - 
which might be indicative that we might possibly be trying to answer the 
wrong questions.
Marilyn Cade wrote:
> 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. 

Regards,

--

                       -ross rader
                        general manager,
                        domain direct/netidentity/nameplanet

Have you checked out the NetIdentity/Nameplanet Weblog?
http://netidentity.weblog.info