Fwd: [council] Proposed motion on WHOIS

[KathrynKL at AOL.COM]

I'm home now, so my delay comes from the long flight :-).
I understand Mawaki's feelings completely.  I don't like this  resolution at
all,
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.

So might I suggest a combination of the approaches we are talking  about:
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.
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.

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.

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....

Regards, Kathy

Personally, I'm attempted by civil disobedience except my
statement  to the council in replying to Bruce's motion (see
first section of my  reply*). I feel like people are being
requested to explain why they voted  the way they did,
notwithstanding the careful wording of the motion, and  this
because some don't like the result of the vote. This is not  the
same as asking the TF and those who drafted the definitions  to
explain what these mean, etc.

Other than that, I'm OK if the  constituency decides to go for a
unique and common  declaration.



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncuc.org/pipermail/ncuc-discuss/attachments/20060630/78475d76/attachment.html>