Re: [council] RE: point (2) of motion one on WHOIS passed on 20 July 2006

[Mawaki Chango <ki_chango@xxxxxxxxx>]

Hello Bruce,

Thanks for the clarification. That was the point I was trying to
raise on the call (confusingly, I admit), so it's Ok to mention it,
somehow, in the minutes.

Please note, I was not making this point in an antagonistic spirit.
As I said, my understanding was that the (1) & (2) were meant to walk
togeter, and that's what I explained to my constituency members when
they objected to the compilation completed by Maria that it accouts
for only one side of the interpretations (I confirmed to them that
there was nothing wrong with that because she has just done what she
was instructed to do in this motion.) 

So what you are saying now is that we should have in that
compilation, based on para. (2) of the motion, an outline of all the
interpretations drawn from ALL the letters, inputs, comments, etc.,
regardless of their final position as to the two formulations???
Could you please check if we all are on the same page, Maria
included, and if this is what has actually be done?

Again, I'm making this point only for the sake of the clarity of the
outcome of our decisions. In case, as I sometimes find myself, we
need to respond to objections from our constituents or from any
members of the Internet communities.

Thanks,

Mawaki

--- Bruce Tonkin <Bruce.Tonkin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> Hello Mawaki,
> 
> >  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. 
> 
> Just to clarify - point (2) of motion one, is not intended to be
> restricted to only covering the interpretations of those that were
> against the definition.  
> 
> I think the purpose of point (2) is to help us understand how
> diverse
> the interpretations of the definition are.  It is not intended to
> focus
> on how many support each formulation - as that work has already
> been
> done in the WHOIS report.  For example two people may agree on the
> interpretation of the definition, but one may be in favour and one
> may
> not be in favour of the definition.
> 
> For example, two people may believe that the definition means that
> the
> WHOIS service will no longer publish the home address of a
> registrant
> that is an individual rather than a company.  One of the two people
> may
> think this is good from a privacy point of view, and the other
> person
> may think that this is bad from the point of view of enforcing
> intellectual property rights.   The purpose of the motion is not to
> re-iterate the well understood objectives of the two people, but to
> understand if they have the same understanding of the meaning of
> the
> definition.
> 
> Regards,
> Bruce Tonkin
> 
>