Proposed WHOIS motion for 20 July 2006

[Mawaki Chango]

Iliya et al.

The other fact is that your likely-shared confusion is obviously
related to my discomfort and opposition to the para.(1) of the
motion. The "economy" of the motion (flawed IMHO), on that
point, is that the supporters/voters of the voted definition
explain it, and the staff take care of the positions of the
supporters of the rejected formulation.

The debates between the two positions have been equally
documented - within the TF, within the Council and even from the
public comments/reactions post-vote (as Iliya and Milton just
confirmed.) So I would rather see the staff synthesize with more
clarity the two sides of the debate (as per Iliya's first,
erroneous but legitimate interpretation), or those who crafted
the proposed definitions be asked to explain them to the public
or stakeholders, given the misinterpretations. I still don't get
it, neither politically nor "intellectually," that Council
members who voted for the current definition be individually
asked to explain what they have understood by what they voted
for.

I understand that the Constituency as a whole (and as
championing the voted formulation) may submit a statement to
address that request (para.1) in the motion. I would see it as a
reaction to the pressures that have developed since the vote, a
contribution to the debate post-vote, or a pedagogical effort
toward the public. But I, as a Councillor who voted, am not
going to submit an explanation of how I understand the voted
definition - not especially after the lenghty debates, including
within the Council, available on public mailing lists.

I've again sent an email to the Council advising the first para
be removed, and just registered support from the fellow Thomas
Keller.

Regards,

Mawaki

--- Iliya Nickelt <iliya at GMX.DE> wrote:

> On 17 Jul 2006 at 19:20, Milton Mueller wrote:
> > Hate to sound impatient, but please check what ICANN has
> actually posted
> > before complaining about it.
> >
> >
> http://gnso.icann.org/issues/whois-privacy/correspondence.html
>
>
> Unfortunatly (for me) Milton is right once more. In the
> resolution it
> says that
> "The ICANN staff will provide a summary of the other" [!!]
> "interpretations of the definition"
>
> It just so happened that all *other* definitions proposed were
> about
> "whois use for legal matters" aka formulation 1. Those not
> included only
> defended the standard technical definition (2), and did not
> re-define it,
> so there was no reason to include it.
>
> My first (not so very surprising) misinterpretation was that
> the table
> was supposed to give a complete overview different definitions
> for whois
> on the basis of the comments recieved. I got it wrong and
> Maria Farrell
> only did ICANN staff was asked to do. Let's just hope that
> other council
> members do not make my mistake and read the other input, too.
>
> Sorry for the confusion -- never trust your prejudices.
> 	--iliya
> (objectivity does make politics more difficult, though)
>