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

[Mawaki Chango]

Please find below my email to Bruce following his
interpretation/explanation of the para (2) of the Whois Motion One
voted on July 20 by the GNSO Council.

So far, I only received this email from the staff, Maria Farell, who
compiled the table. So please let me know your view.

-----Original Message-----
From: Maria Farrell [mailto:maria.farrell at icann.org]
Sent: Monday, July 31, 2006 3:30 PM
To: 'Mawaki Chango'
Cc: 'Bruce Tonkin'; 'Denise Michel'
Subject: FW: [council] RE: point (2) of motion one on WHOIS passed on
20 July 2006

 Hi Mawaki,

I think I have a clear idea of what's required for the summary. In
case I'm missing something, could we have a chat to go through it?

If there is any ambiguity, then I can circle back with Bruce.

I can call you tomorrow morning, your time, if that suits you. What
would be a good number to get you on?

All the best, Maria


--- Mawaki Chango <ki_chango at yahoo.com> wrote:

> Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2006 07:54:51 -0700 (PDT)
> From: Mawaki Chango <ki_chango at yahoo.com>
> Subject: Re: [council] RE: point (2) of motion one on WHOIS passed
> on 20 July 2006
> To: Council GNSO <council at gnso.icann.org>
>
> 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 at melbourneit.com.au> 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
> >
> >
>
>