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

[Mawaki Chango <ki_chango@xxxxxxxxx>]

Dear Glen,

Two of the corrections I've requested are still missing - please find
them below in square brackets and capital letters (the old versions
are left in normal brackects, but should be completely removed from
the draft.) To ensure the accuracy of these minutes, I'd like to
point out once again that the last sentence in capitals below is part
of the quote started a few lines ago, not my comment, so the final
quotation mark comes after '...SEE WHAT WE LEARN.' - And I made no
further comment beyond that point.

Thank you,

Mawaki

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

 
> Mawaki Chango commented that without prejudice of how the Board 
> conducted its consultations and deliberations prior to its final 
> decisions, the Council had had lengthy debates and exchange of
> arguments 
> before the WHOIS definition vote, all of which was documented on a 
> public mailing list. In fact, most of the letters the Council had 
> 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. Mawaki considered any further explanation [TO
RESPOND] (as a
> response) 
> to that contention [AS] (was) useless for that very reason, which
he
> believed 
> was 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 20 July 2006: '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
> the 
> operational point of contact (oPOC) 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."]
 
> (Mawaki further commented that he was not sure what would be
> achieved by 
> having explanations from those who voted in favour of formulation
> one, 
> but he was happy to go through the process and see what could be
> learnt.)
> 
> 
> -- 
> Glen de Saint Géry
> GNSO Secretariat - ICANN
> gnso.secretariat[at]gnso.icann.org
> http://gnso.icann.org
>