Re: [council] Draft Charter for new Whois Working Group
- To: Maria Farrell <maria.farrell@xxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: Re: [council] Draft Charter for new Whois Working Group
- From: Ross Rader <ross@xxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sat, 31 Mar 2007 03:59:16 +0100
- Cc: "'Council GNSO'" <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- In-reply-to: <002701c772d2$94b3f9f0$62f289c1@scarlet>
- References: <002701c772d2$94b3f9f0$62f289c1@scarlet>
- Sender: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Many thanks for turning this around so quickly. The draft is
generally great. I'd like to suggest that the section entitled "work
plan" uses the relevant text of the resolution instead of the
language currently employed. In a couple of places, the work plan
outlines a much greater scope of work than that contemplated by the
4.a proposed expands the examination of the definition of the roles
to all contacts, whereas the resolution only sought to examine the
definition of the operational point of contact.
4.b proposed requests the WG to determine how third parties may
access unpublished data for legitimate activities, whereas the
resolution only seeks to describe how legitimate interests will
access unpublished data. The difference seems small, but the proposed
language requests the creation of a comprehensive proposal that
describes an access mechanism for a long list of "legitimate
activities" rather than a proposal that describes an access mechanism
for use by legitimate interests.
4.c proposed additionally requests the WG to determine how the
distinctions should be made whereas the Council resolution only
sought to discover if the distinctions in question were possible to
In each of these cases, it might just make the most sense to rely on
the text of the original resolution as ratified by Council to ensure
that we don't lose clarity on our actual objectives.
Second, a question. Concerning the issue of defining agreement. When
it comes to understanding what constitutes "broad agreement", will
this be measured on the views shared by individuals or interest groups?
Finally, in order to ensure that we're all working from the same
foundation, it might make sense to specifically include the policy
recommendations of the task force in the document itself, either as a
summary, or an annex that we can easily refer to. The policy
recommendations that I am referring to are included in section 4 of
the report, as per the clarifications I made during our discuss at
the recent Council meeting.
On 30-Mar-07, at 2:51 PM, Maria Farrell wrote:
Dear Council members,
Attached is the draft Charter that sets out the statement of work and
working methodologies of the Whois Working Group, created by
the GNSO Council in Lisbon, on 28 March.
Please review it and note that it will be an agenda item for
adoption at the next Council meeting on 12 April.
Also, please email this list if you wish to be on the Working
feel free to to put any interested constituency members or outside
in touch with me for further information.
All the best, Maria
<Whois Working Group Charter2.doc>
Director, Retail Services
"To solve the problems of today, we must focus on tomorrow."
- Erik Nupponen