Re: [council] Revised Draft minutes of the GNSO Council teleconference 20 July 2006

[Mawaki Chango <ki_chango@xxxxxxxxx>]

Dear Glen,

I would like to suggest the following changes and additions to the
minutes, in connection with the discussion about Motion One.

Under the "Discussion of the motion..." in the minutes, the current
first bullet to be replaced by:

- the assertion that the voted definition of the WHOIS purpose is
that of the WHOIS service is consistent with the WHOIS Task Force
Terms of Reference that request the definition of the purpose of
WHOIS service.

I made further comments during the meeting I'd like to appear in the
minutes; they are meant as follows (not sure, though, how you may go
about the final quote.)

* After speaking against the initial motion proposed in Marrakesh, I
am comfortable with the latest change that does not request, but give
the opportunity to the council members to explain their vote, if they
so wish. I note, however, that the new version of the numbered
paragraph (1) of the Motion One may introduce a non desirable
imbalance with the numbered paragraph (2), assuming that they are
coupled in the initial design of the motion, so that those who voted
for the current definition explain their rationale while the staff
will take care of compiling and presenting the rationale of those who
oppose that definition. In the current version of the motion, only
those of the relevant council members who are willing to do so may
provide an explanation of their vote for the current definition. With
the likelihood that they may be few, the request to the staff to
compile the opposing views may become less relevant. 

* Regarding the reference to the Board practice, especially for the
dot COM agreement, as a base to request Council members to explain
their vote or decision: I noted that, without prejudice of how the
Board conducts its consultations and deliberations prior to its final
decisions, the Council had had lengthy debates and exchange of
arguments before the WHOIS definition vote, which is documented on a
public mailing list. In fact, most of the letters the Council has
received were not asking for an explanation of the vote, but
contending that the Council voted for the wrong definition, and
therefore, should change its vote. I think any further explanation as
a response to that contention is useless for that very reason, which,
I believe, is related to what the Council Chair, Bruce Tonkin, called
"the end objectives of those that support the two formulations," (in
his email to the Council list, dated July 19 or 20, with subject
'Regarding Powerpoint presentation in the GNSO/GAC workshop on Monday
26 June 2006'.)
§§§§§§

Quote of the email message from Bruce Tonkin (sent July 19 or 20)
Subject: Regarding Powerpoint presentation in the GNSO/GAC workshop
on Monday 26 June 2006

"It seems to me that the debate is not really about the formulations
- which are really almost the same purely from a language point of
view, but the concern is about the end objectives of those that
support the two formulations.  I think there is far more variation in
the end objectives of the various constituencies, than there is
variation in the two formulations. [...] Rather than waste further
time on debating the formulations, it seems to me personally that we
probably need to move on and discuss a possible reference
implementation (e.g OPAC) that may not be quite as bad or good as
some had hoped, but it might actually improve the effectiveness of
the WHOIS service for us all.

I am not sure yet what getting those who voted in support of
formulation 1 to state their reasons why they supported formulation 1
will achieve, but I am happy to try it and see what we learn."
§§§§§§

I hope this is clear. Thank you very much.

Mawaki


--- "GNSO.SECRETARIAT@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx"
<gnso.secretariat@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> [council[at]gnso.icann.org]
> 
> Dear Council Members,
> 
> Please find the revised draft minutes of the GNSO Council
> teleconference 
> held on 20 July 2006.
>