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

[Mawaki Chango <ki_chango@xxxxxxxxx>]

Thnaks Marilyn for this summary and further clarification.
Indeed, I was aware of Bruce's attempts to interpret and clarify
the possible consequences of the Council's voted WHOIS purpose
definition. I read Bruce's posting here to that end a little
while before Marrakesh, and followed the presentations in
Marrakesh, and particularly the powerpoint you're referring to.

Nobody's interpretation, not even the Chair's (and I think Bruce
would agree), commits the Council, the TF, or the future of this
PDP. We have been facing a situation where stakeholders were
sending letters pressing the GNSO Council to change their vote,
that the council made a wrong decision (they are not even asking
for more explanation, but precisely for a cancellation of the
Council's vote, so that their preferred definition be put in
place instead - which for me is a surrealistic demand.) 

One thing at least is interesting though, because it allows some
discussion, that is, they have provided a few arguments to
justify their demand. So, as far as my understanding goes, what
Bruce has tried to do in response to those pressures and
arguments was to explain that the simple adoption of that
definition for the WHOIS purpose does not in itself imply all
the disastroous consequences that are argued by those
stakeholders (anti-council vote) - e.g., that such definition in
itself does not state, neither does it allow to conclude, that
the same data will no longer be collected, that law enforcement
agencies, property rights legal entities, etc. would not have
acces to it, etc. Bruce was explaining that after the vote of
the purpose definition for WHOIS, there are subsequent terms of
reference for the TF, whereby issues such as the data to be
collected, who may have access and under what conditions, etc.
will be addressed. I understand that the purpose of the WHOIS is
what it has been _designed_ for (my understanding), and in
Bruce's thinking, it is not necessary what the data is used, or
may be used, for; I guess that's why he started introducing that
shift between the purpose of the Whois data and the purpose of
the Whois service, i.e. use of the data, etc. (personally, I'm
still cautious about this, but I at least can understand his
rationale.)

To conclude, Marilyn, I don't think the Council even need to
make a decision whether we agree or not on Bruce's response to
the community (because in fact, this is hardly an interpretation
of the voted definition), i.e. it is a fact that all the
desastrous consequences that are argued in the letters from the
contenders of the Council vote are not rendered inevitable by
the simple result of our vote; and that those arguments are
ill-timed at least because those issues are still to be
addressed by the TF. So in the best interest of all of us, the
TF should just continue its work, and we may not even need a
motion, as Avri put it in question. But now that we have talked
at lenghts of this motion, we may finally need one to explain
why we don't need one ;-)

Best regards,

Mawaki

--- Marilyn Cade <marilynscade@xxxxxxxxxxx> 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. 
> > > 
> > 
> > 
> 
>