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

[Mawaki Chango]

You will remember the Whois interpretation table prepared by Maria
raised som questions here, as to whether the table was to reflect all
the interpretations (from the comments/reactions received during
after the vote process), or only those advocating for another
definition (or a redefinition) of the Whois purpose. Please read
Bruce's explanation below, which seems to be the opposite of what we
thought would justify the Whois interpretation table as one-sided.

So, if you feel that way, please let me hear it and know what are the
relevant materials you think are missing from that overview that is,
according to Bruce, supposed to be integral and not position oriented
as to the definition favoured.

Mawaki

--- Bruce Tonkin <Bruce.Tonkin at melbourneit.com.au> wrote:

> Subject: [council] RE: point (2) of motion one on WHOIS passed on
> 20 July 2006
> Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2006 12:03:10 +1000
> From: "Bruce Tonkin" <Bruce.Tonkin at melbourneit.com.au>
> To: "Council GNSO" <council at gnso.icann.org>
>
> 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
>
>