<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=US-ASCII">
<META content="MSHTML 6.00.2800.1555" name=GENERATOR></HEAD>
<BODY id=role_body style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: #000000; FONT-FAMILY: Arial"
bottomMargin=7 leftMargin=7 topMargin=7 rightMargin=7><FONT id=role_document
face=Arial color=#000000 size=2>
<DIV>
<DIV>I'm home now, so my delay comes from the long flight :-).</DIV>
<DIV>I understand Mawaki's feelings completely. I don't like this
resolution at all,</DIV>
<DIV>and I do think it (and its motivations) are not great. But I
recognize the huge pressure of 3 constituencies (BC, IP, and ISP) that wanted to
block all Whois work to date. While the Council is saying No, many members do
not want to alienate these 3 powerful constituencies completely. </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>So might I suggest a combination of the approaches we are talking
about:</DIV>
<DIV>1) Let's get the text of the resolution changed. There are several
people on the list who see some distinct dangers in the existing wording (hard
to say if they are intentional or unintentional), but if our Council members
could work to make the wording clearer and not as dangerous (pursuant to these
comments and your own), I would appreciate it.</DIV>
<DIV>2) Then if you want to take exception to one of the Resolutions and not
submit a statement (as an individual Council member or as a joint stand of the
NCUC), I would support that. </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>I would recommend that we draft 1 and 2 together -- so that the Task Force,
the NCUC members and the Council members are working together and on the same
page. </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>BTW, the news is good -- we have momentum on our side. This is a road
bump -- there is progress in privacy and together it will continue.... </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Regards, Kathy</DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE
style="PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: blue 2px solid"><FONT
style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" face=Arial color=#000000
size=2>Personally, I'm attempted by civil disobedience except my<BR>statement
to the council in replying to Bruce's motion (see<BR>first section of my
reply*). I feel like people are being<BR>requested to explain why they voted
the way they did,<BR>notwithstanding the careful wording of the motion, and
this<BR>because some don't like the result of the vote. This is not
the<BR>same as asking the TF and those who drafted the definitions
to<BR>explain what these mean, etc.<BR><BR>Other than that, I'm OK if the
constituency decides to go for a<BR>unique and common
declaration.</FONT></BLOCKQUOTE></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV></FONT></BODY></HTML>